Guitar Gear Forum

Cflat wrote:I understand. I just don't see faith as a virtue. Why the hell should it be? In what universe should it be considered a good thing to believe things without evidence? Do I have to give examples of how dangerous that is? Everyone recognizes this as being foolish, as long as we're talking about anything other than religion. I see that as a problem. It is never wrong to demand evidence, especially scientific evidence, before believing anything. That's sort of how it's supposed to work.
If you're believing things based on faith without regards to scientifically scrutinized evidence, then you are doing it very wrong. At least, if you are in any way interested in living in reality on reality's terms. I do, and I think it's important to encourage others to.

Oh, and before I forget, it may not be "wrong," but it certainly is, imo, silly to demand *scientific* evidence of/for things which, by definition, do not admit of empirical testability.

Had to say it.

draelyc wrote:

Cflat wrote:I understand. I just don't see faith as a virtue. Why the hell should it be? In what universe should it be considered a good thing to believe things without evidence? Do I have to give examples of how dangerous that is? Everyone recognizes this as being foolish, as long as we're talking about anything other than religion. I see that as a problem. It is never wrong to demand evidence, especially scientific evidence, before believing anything. That's sort of how it's supposed to work.
If you're believing things based on faith without regards to scientifically scrutinized evidence, then you are doing it very wrong. At least, if you are in any way interested in living in reality on reality's terms. I do, and I think it's important to encourage others to.

Oh, and before I forget, it may not be "wrong," but it certainly is, imo, silly to demand *scientific* evidence of/for things which, by definition, do not admit of empirical testability.

Had to say it.

I actually agree with you, there.
Where we differ is that I haven't found a rational reason to accept non-empirical evidence as reliable in any way. And when applying healthy skepticism (which should be encouraged in all cases) to claims where non-empirical evidence is required, it's found extremely lacking. I'm open to it, for sure. I'm just waiting for a demonstration that it is comparable to empirical evidence in reliability, usefulness, and predictability.

As for the definition of faith, I can agree or disagree with you depending on whose definition we're using. Most people use faith as believing things without evidence (and in some cases, contrary to it). In that case, my assertion that it is not a virtue stands.

draelyc wrote:

Cflat wrote:I understand. I just don't see faith as a virtue. Why the hell should it be? In what universe should it be considered a good thing to believe things without evidence? Do I have to give examples of how dangerous that is? Everyone recognizes this as being foolish, as long as we're talking about anything other than religion. I see that as a problem. It is never wrong to demand evidence, especially scientific evidence, before believing anything. That's sort of how it's supposed to work.
If you're believing things based on faith without regards to scientifically scrutinized evidence, then you are doing it very wrong. At least, if you are in any way interested in living in reality on reality's terms. I do, and I think it's important to encourage others to.

Oh, and before I forget, it may not be "wrong," but it certainly is, imo, silly to demand *scientific* evidence of/for things which, by definition, do not admit of empirical testability.

Had to say it.

Of course you are right if we're talking about the metaphysical.

But many religious claims are very physical in nature, and thus subject to empirical testing.





But you knew that already.

rear naked wrote:

draelyc wrote:

Cflat wrote:I understand. I just don't see faith as a virtue. Why the hell should it be? In what universe should it be considered a good thing to believe things without evidence? Do I have to give examples of how dangerous that is? Everyone recognizes this as being foolish, as long as we're talking about anything other than religion. I see that as a problem. It is never wrong to demand evidence, especially scientific evidence, before believing anything. That's sort of how it's supposed to work.
If you're believing things based on faith without regards to scientifically scrutinized evidence, then you are doing it very wrong. At least, if you are in any way interested in living in reality on reality's terms. I do, and I think it's important to encourage others to.

Oh, and before I forget, it may not be "wrong," but it certainly is, imo, silly to demand *scientific* evidence of/for things which, by definition, do not admit of empirical testability.

Had to say it.

Of course you are right if we're talking about the metaphysical...

An excerpt from Carl Sagan's, The Demon-Haunted World (which I think everyone should read);

At a dinner many decades ago, the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to the toast, "To physics and metaphysics." By "metaphysics," people then meant something like philosophy, or truths you could recognize just by thinking about them. They could also have included pseudoscience.

Wood answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it seems to make. He consults the scientific literature. The more he reads, the more promising the idea becomes. Thus prepared, he goes to the laboratory and devises an experiment to test it. The experiment is painstaking. Many
possibilities are checked. The accuracy of measurement is refined, the error bars reduced. He lets the chips fall where they may. He is devoted only to what the experiment teaches. At the end of all this work, through careful experimentation, the idea is found to be worthless. So the physicist discards it, frees his mind from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.

The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded as he raised his glass high, is not that the practitioners of one are smarter than the practitioners of the other. The difference is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.

Cflat wrote:

draelyc wrote:

Cflat wrote:I understand. I just don't see faith as a virtue. Why the hell should it be? In what universe should it be considered a good thing to believe things without evidence? Do I have to give examples of how dangerous that is? Everyone recognizes this as being foolish, as long as we're talking about anything other than religion. I see that as a problem. It is never wrong to demand evidence, especially scientific evidence, before believing anything. That's sort of how it's supposed to work.
If you're believing things based on faith without regards to scientifically scrutinized evidence, then you are doing it very wrong. At least, if you are in any way interested in living in reality on reality's terms. I do, and I think it's important to encourage others to.

Oh, and before I forget, it may not be "wrong," but it certainly is, imo, silly to demand *scientific* evidence of/for things which, by definition, do not admit of empirical testability.

Had to say it.

I actually agree with you, there.
Where we differ is that I haven't found a rational reason to accept non-empirical evidence as reliable in any way. And when applying healthy skepticism (which should be encouraged in all cases) to claims where non-empirical evidence is required, it's found extremely lacking. I'm open to it, for sure. I'm just waiting for a demonstration that it is comparable to empirical evidence in reliability, usefulness, and predictability.

That's a fair point, and it's the sort of thing that makes it possible for two different people to have differing, even opposing, yet valid views. If you find a piece (or type) of evidence lacking, you *shouldn't* accept it.

As for the definition of faith, I can agree or disagree with you depending on whose definition we're using. Most people use faith as believing things without evidence (and in some cases, contrary to it). In that case, my assertion that it is not a virtue stands.

Totally agree. Funny thing, that all too common definition of faith isn't really biblical at all -- at least not according to the First Testament.

rear naked wrote:

draelyc wrote:

Cflat wrote:I understand. I just don't see faith as a virtue. Why the hell should it be? In what universe should it be considered a good thing to believe things without evidence? Do I have to give examples of how dangerous that is? Everyone recognizes this as being foolish, as long as we're talking about anything other than religion. I see that as a problem. It is never wrong to demand evidence, especially scientific evidence, before believing anything. That's sort of how it's supposed to work.
If you're believing things based on faith without regards to scientifically scrutinized evidence, then you are doing it very wrong. At least, if you are in any way interested in living in reality on reality's terms. I do, and I think it's important to encourage others to.

Oh, and before I forget, it may not be "wrong," but it certainly is, imo, silly to demand *scientific* evidence of/for things which, by definition, do not admit of empirical testability.

Had to say it.

Of course you are right if we're talking about the metaphysical.

But many religious claims are very physical in nature, and thus subject to empirical testing.





But you knew that already.

I did, but it's worth noting my agreement with your point out loud.

Cflat wrote:

rear naked wrote:

draelyc wrote:

Cflat wrote:I understand. I just don't see faith as a virtue. Why the hell should it be? In what universe should it be considered a good thing to believe things without evidence? Do I have to give examples of how dangerous that is? Everyone recognizes this as being foolish, as long as we're talking about anything other than religion. I see that as a problem. It is never wrong to demand evidence, especially scientific evidence, before believing anything. That's sort of how it's supposed to work.
If you're believing things based on faith without regards to scientifically scrutinized evidence, then you are doing it very wrong. At least, if you are in any way interested in living in reality on reality's terms. I do, and I think it's important to encourage others to.

Oh, and before I forget, it may not be "wrong," but it certainly is, imo, silly to demand *scientific* evidence of/for things which, by definition, do not admit of empirical testability.

Had to say it.

Of course you are right if we're talking about the metaphysical...

An excerpt from Carl Sagan's, The Demon-Haunted World (which I think everyone should read);

At a dinner many decades ago, the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to the toast, "To physics and metaphysics." By "metaphysics," people then meant something like philosophy, or truths you could recognize just by thinking about them. They could also have included pseudoscience.

Wood answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it seems to make. He consults the scientific literature. The more he reads, the more promising the idea becomes. Thus prepared, he goes to the laboratory and devises an experiment to test it. The experiment is painstaking. Many
possibilities are checked. The accuracy of measurement is refined, the error bars reduced. He lets the chips fall where they may. He is devoted only to what the experiment teaches. At the end of all this work, through careful experimentation, the idea is found to be worthless. So the physicist discards it, frees his mind from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.

The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded as he raised his glass high, is not that the practitioners of one are smarter than the practitioners of the other. The difference is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.

That's a good book, but in that last assertion, Wood is incorrect.

I usually stay out of these, since there are forums dedicated solely for philosophy that suit me better.

But here's a fun brain twister I've been pondering lately. If we start with the theory of relativity and how the speed of light is the only true constant, and space and time are not. Maybe we're looking at things completely bass-ackwards? Maybe space and time, and therefore matter as well, are an epiphenomenon of the speed of light?

In other words, time is the speed of the object in relation to the observer (subject), or one speed in relation to the other speed. How would we articulate a model where the speed is the singular unit, not consisting of space traveled in relation to time spent, since space and time are relative, using the speed of light as a constant?

What does this have to do with metaphysics? A whole lot, but let's not get to that yet.

Im pretty confused by your post lol

Would you mind rewording this part?

In other words, time is the speed of the object in relation to the observer (subject), or one speed in relation to the other speed. How would we articulate a model where the speed is the singular unit, not consisting of space traveled in relation to time spent, since space and time are relative, using the speed of light as a constant?

Spacetime intervals between events are also invariant. So, it is not just 'c' that is constant.

Yeah, trying to put it into words makes me feel like a Flatlander, lol.

Basically, I'm talking about creating a system based around the speed of light as the basis, which is completely opposite from how our understanding works now, ie. the speed of light is a result we get by using time and space to calculate it, ie. speed not consisting of "parts" but as the indivisible main unit. Instead of deriving the speed of light from space and time, we derive everything else from it.

rear naked wrote:Spacetime intervals between events are also invariant. So, it is not just 'c' that is constant.

Could you put your post into a bit more words, I'm having trouble making out what this means?

EDIT: From a quick look, I'd say invariant intervals are only invariant because the speed of light is constant? The invariant interval in space-time doesn't fluctuate because the fluctuating space and and time always come up as the same result when looked at together? x+y results always in c.

Or more accurately, c = squareroot[(Δr^2-s^2)/Δt^2]

Where Δr=spatial coordinate difference, Δt=temporal coordinate difference, s=distance in spacetime

Am I looking at this correctly?

^^^ This is really fascinating -- more plox?

draelyc wrote:^^^ This is really fascinating -- more plox?

I'd like to continue as well, but first I'd like to know if I'm talking out my ass or what from someone who has actually studied physics.

But I did notice something interesting, that I've been pondering about today. If we take the c from that formula for the invariant interval, and place it into E=mc^2, we get

E = m[(Δr^2-s^2)/Δt^2]

Now it's not apparent immediately from the function, but it's basically the energy contained within a system expressed by using only mass, the spacetime distance between two objects and their coordinates in time and space. (That is, if I'm not talking out my ass).

nakedzen wrote:Yeah, trying to put it into words makes me feel like a Flatlander, lol.

Basically, I'm talking about creating a system based around the speed of light as the basis, which is completely opposite from how our understanding works now, ie. the speed of light is a result we get by using time and space to calculate it, ie. speed not consisting of "parts" but as the indivisible main unit. Instead of deriving the speed of light from space and time, we derive everything else from it.

rear naked wrote:Spacetime intervals between events are also invariant. So, it is not just 'c' that is constant.

Could you put your post into a bit more words, I'm having trouble making out what this means?

EDIT: From a quick look, I'd say invariant intervals are only invariant because the speed of light is constant? The invariant interval in space-time doesn't fluctuate because the fluctuating space and and time always come up as the same result when looked at together? x+y results always in c.

Or more accurately, c = squareroot[(Δr^2-s^2)/Δt^2]

Where Δr=spatial coordinate difference, Δt=temporal coordinate difference, s=distance in spacetime

Am I looking at this correctly?

its been a while since i thought about physics...


Yeah. it is just a distance formula

Yeah, I've been in the humanities since my undergrad days (a while back), so at this point I *really* need someone to do the math for me.

"Pretend for one minute that I don't know anything about chemistry, metallurgy, or physics, and just TELL ME WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON!" -- Dr. P. Venckman

nakedzen wrote:

draelyc wrote:^^^ This is really fascinating -- more plox?

I'd like to continue as well, but first I'd like to know if I'm talking out my ass or what from someone who has actually studied physics.

But I did notice something interesting, that I've been pondering about today. If we take the c from that formula for the invariant interval, and place it into E=mc^2, we get

E = m[(Δr^2-s^2)/Δt^2]

Now it's not apparent immediately from the function, but it's basically the energy contained within a system expressed by using only mass, the spacetime distance between two objects and their coordinates in time and space. (That is, if I'm not talking out my ass).

lol that is a rather complicated way to solve for energy when you only needed mass in the first place

this formula describes rest energy. If the spacetime interval is over a time of 1sec, then it is equal to 3E8 meters...since delta r is 0 (at rest). Your formula reduces to E=mc^2

You should get this published!

rear naked wrote:lol that is a rather complicated way to solve for energy when you only needed mass in the first place

That wasn't really my point.

Only to show that it's possible to do it that way, and try to deduce what it might imply.