bore the shit out of you
See what you did there...
Did you?
No, just er, kidding...
I see no reason why this [scientific]progress should not continue
Really you think there is no limit to our ability to measure enough variables to be able to explain everything always?
I am certain every human obeys all the laws of the universe so could science tell me what they do from birth to death?
Will we ever actually be able to do long term weather forecasts? Again a clearly deterministic system. Theoretically we should be able to tell you everything that happens from this date forward with enough knowledge and data ...well apart from the problems of non linear dynamics - chaos theory- where small differences at outset make large differences in end product. Even theoretically science cannot answer all questions. – we could debate this granted but I am sure you can see the point I am making.
I am hardly suggesting there has been no advance for mankind as a result of science - is anyone that dumb? Clearly it is the most powerful tool we have for knowing the universe and interpreting reality but it also has limits.
Those limits are way past those of introspection, faith and belief.
Will we ever actually be able to do long term weather forecasts? Again a clearly deterministic system. Theoretically we should be able to tell you everything that happens from this date forward with enough knowledge and data ...well apart from the problems of non linear dynamics - chaos theory- where small differences at outset make large differences in end product. Even theoretically science cannot answer all questions. – we could debate this granted but I am sure you can see the point I am making.
Err ... no. You seem a bit confused. Weather forecasting is deterministic but, as you say, minute differences in the starting conditions (below the level where they can feasibly be measured) leads to big differences in outcome. That isn't a "failure" of science, just a statement of the way things are, in practice. "Theoretically" these questions could be answered, given enough data and enough computer horsepower, but practically there may never be enough data or computer.
[i] "Theoretically" these questions could be answered, given enough data and enough computer horsepower, but practically there may never be enough data or computer.[/i]
I'm not entirely sure that they could be answered even theoretically. Philosophically a computational system so all encompassing will also have to take into account it's own calculations including the ones it has yet to make, that may lead to an unsolvable circularity.
Could be wrong, as it's not an area I know much about.
Interesting idea!! But I still don't see it as "failure" of science. It's still a better way to tell the weather than asking an imaginary friend. Or the Pope.
Sounds like God.a computational system so all encompassing will also have to take into account it's own calculations including the ones it has yet to make, that may lead to an unsolvable circularity.
a computational system so all encompassing will also have to take into account it's own calculations including the ones it has yet to make, that may lead to an unsolvable circularity.Sounds like God.
Ah, no, sorry. That'll be me.
😆
Sounds like God.
You know what sounds like God?
"Rod".
Or "Pod". Even "Nod" is pretty close.
But none of them is God. He is all around you. Embrace his love. He is in your iPhone too. He is everywhere.
Even theoretically science cannot answer all questions. – we could debate this granted but I am sure you can see the point I am making
What? That because science cant answer all of the questions that this gives weight to an alternative hypothesis, that God did it.
You may well be correct that given the countless permutations and variables, science may never explain fully certain facets of our life. But then to infer that because this may be the case then the alternative hypothesis is equally valid, is proposterous.
My iPhone [b]is[/b] God
But none of them is God. He is all around you. Embrace his love. He is in your iPhone too. He is everywhere.
I suspect your sincerity DD
Stone the blasphemer.My iPhone is God
Sorry - I should point out that there is no iPhone but iPhone, and it is the true iPhone.
So sayeth the (Mac)Book Of Jobs
bloody hell you say one thing about the limits of science and suddenly you are a creationist nutter. No science has limits but religion is just unevidenced nonesense. What I said in no way supports a religous view, You are looking for God apologists everywhere you lot. there is not ANY evidence to support a god hypothesis and there is no objective evidence.That because science cant answer all of the questions that this gives weight to an alternative hypothesis, that God did it.
“Theoretically" these questions could be answered, given enough data and enough computer horsepower, but practically there may never be enough data or computer.
So you could but you can’t brilliant answer and you claim I am confused 😉
It is a big assumption to say that theoretically you can know everything with science as there is no proof of this conjecture. There is some evidence to refute this conjecture-Heisnbergs uncertaintity principle for example. The effect of the observer on events is it a wave or a particle? – Schroedingers cat and Godel re axioms /maths are further examples of the limits.
I do not belief in God and I have a science degree FWIW.
You couldn't make it up. "Carry On Popeing", anybody?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8617305.stm
For sale axes,ground to a nice sharpness.see woppit for details.If no reply try surfer.
Live and let live eh?
Hi Duckman, still stalking I see!!
Sorry Junkman if I misunderstood you.
