-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Gravity: It isnt just a good idea. Its the law.
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
I have to admit, I never quite understood this idea, even when brought up previously. What does it mean (to the mathematician or Pythagorean) that "we are part of a mathematical structure"?
Also, isn't the last sentence just a rehash of the Creationists' "the world is made perfectly for us"? What is the difference between "explains why math works so well" and "the world is made perfect for us"?
From the article ...
When I was young and still had all my brain cells I was a bridge fan, and one hand I once read about in the newspaper bridge column has stuck with me as a good metaphor for the plight of the scientist, or of the citizen cosmologist. The winning bidder had overbid his hand. When the dummy cards were laid, he realized that his only chance of making his contract was if his opponents’ cards were distributed just so.
He could have played defensively, to minimize his losses. Instead he played as if the cards were where they had to be. And he won.
We don’t know, and might never know, if science has overbid its hand. When in doubt, confronted with the complexities of the world, scientists have no choice but to play their cards as if they can win, as if the universe is indeed comprehensible. That is what they have been doing for more than 2,000 years, and they are still winning.
Winning is suggestive ...He could have played defensively, to minimize his losses. Instead he played as if the cards were where they had to be. And he won.
We don’t know, and might never know, if science has overbid its hand. When in doubt, confronted with the complexities of the world, scientists have no choice but to play their cards as if they can win, as if the universe is indeed comprehensible. That is what they have been doing for more than 2,000 years, and they are still winning.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Good post. Very interesting article.
I agree with Dr.Davies that both science and religion rest on faith. I'm not sure I agree with him that there are no timeless laws or truths. I do think that "Any physical theory is always provisional". That it is provisional because it cannot be proved doesn't detract from the 'truth' it may represent?
Anton Zeilingers speculation that reality is composed of information seems like a modern expression of the idea that God is in everything, an idea that I would agree with but perhaps I misunderstand what he is saying.
I also wondered in the final paragraph where the author says that scientists have no choice but to play their hand as if the world was 'comprehensible' would it be better if he had used the word predictable?
I agree with Dr.Davies that both science and religion rest on faith. I'm not sure I agree with him that there are no timeless laws or truths. I do think that "Any physical theory is always provisional". That it is provisional because it cannot be proved doesn't detract from the 'truth' it may represent?
Anton Zeilingers speculation that reality is composed of information seems like a modern expression of the idea that God is in everything, an idea that I would agree with but perhaps I misunderstand what he is saying.
I also wondered in the final paragraph where the author says that scientists have no choice but to play their hand as if the world was 'comprehensible' would it be better if he had used the word predictable?
Then you don't appreciate Einstein's quote ...
Prediction is evidence of comprehension ...
tomspug
Absorbant
That's so false. Anyone can make a prediction! I think it's more true to say that prediction is evidence of PERCEPTION of comprehension. Just because someone believes something to be doesn't make it anything.
Otherwise, any kook on the street that predicts some god-awful damnation tomorrow would make (gullible) people stop and take notice and say, 'Hey, he probably knows something I don't.'
I think you misunderstand. In order to make a useful prediction about something you have understanding supporting it. If you know what you're talking about, you can make good predictions. You have to comprehend the laws of gravity, for instance, in order to make a prediction that falls within those laws. If you don't understand the mathematical equations, you are not going to be able to utilize them to predict; or more simply if you don't understand the cause-and-effect of "what goes up must come down," you are not going to be able to utilize that to predict that something will fall. Good prediction evidences comprehension.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Learn to read in context.
The phrase does not refer to predicting what we comprehend, but basing predictions on our comprehension. That we can predict evidences that we comprehend.