Not defined, no. Einstein’s Relativity stated that if time was not absolute but “comprised” the universe then various consequences would be observed. The consequences were observed. The theory therefore withstood an incredibly rigorous test and was an undeniably impressive acheivement, scientifically speaking.
Nonsensically speaking, of course, Relativity was nostalgic yet tepid. In the epistomology known as “nonsense”, this is valid.
I’m afraid you’re not going to get a rise out of us this time, Rama. Carry on making your snowballs if you wish, but your fingers will get cold and your lovely new gloves will get wet.
I’m not sure where you’re going with this. This is what I get for epistemology:
“the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity”
I would say the first part descibes science well enough, but the second part does not. Science does not deal in the limits of knowledge. Science is quite obviously dynamic. Were it not, scientists would still be asserting that the Earth is the center of the universe. In fact, the dream of most scientists is to find that new discovery that would change everyone’s way of thinking, in the way that Einstein did. If the nature of science were to set limits on knowledge, and say “what we know now is all that there is”, none of our body of scientific knowledge could exist.
I’m also not sure what you mean by “your conclusions are so obvious as to be almost trivial”. Most conclusions in science are most certainly not trivial.
Also don’t forget that science has a proven track record. We wouldn’t even be communicating right now without science. I’d be interested to hear what other method of obtaining objective knowledge you think even comes close to the scientific method.
No, it doesn’t make the person invalid, although I’m not sure what the characteristics of a “valid” person or an “invalid” person would be, exactly. But the methodology is definitely invalid. Using science to prove something that is not scientific is like using math to analyze Shakespeare.
Invalid simile. There’s no reason Shakespeare couldn’t be analyzed mathematically. Math is just a language, and all language is ultimately math.
Unfortunately, a mathematical model able to do much with Shakespeare would need to be of roughly the same complexity as the sections of the human brain involved in recognizing and processing language.
Anything which restricts propositions sets a limit on human knowledge, blowero. Science, in its never-ending methodology, restricts a great many propositions explicitly through falsification or implicitly through verification (depending on how you like your science).
Not if the propositions that are excluded are false ones. Eliminating false, imaginary or purely hypothetical things from our belief system does not restrict knowledge.
Yes, if the evidence doesn’t support a proposition, it is discarded. That’s why we no longer believe the Earth is flat. I don’t consider believing the Earth is flat to be knowledge, do you?
Unlike you’d like to postulate that your brain operates in some manner other than the laws of mathematics. I know several physicists, neurophysiologists, and information theorists who would be fascinated if that were the case.
TVAA, you have completely missed the point. Are you contending that science can be validly used to prove that which is not scientific? If yes, please provide an example of such. If no, then I fail to see your point.
blowero, you have completely missed the point. Are you contending that even though science can validly be used to study a subject, that subject is not scientific?
What criteria do you have that indicate the study of Shakespeare cannot be scientific?
The discipline of science is to so-called “non-scientific” things as -
The discipline of math is to literature.
In other words, you can’t use science to prove things which you claim to be outside of the scope of science. This seems so obvious to me that I am flabbergasted that you would argue against it. And then when you argue against the specifics of my analogy, it makes me wonder if you understand what an analogy is. Do you understand that the point of the analogy is NOT whether one could conceivably study Shakespeare using math? If you honestly don’t understand what my point was, then there’s no point in continuing; we may as well be speaking different languages.
I think you may be confusing what you meant to convey with what you said.
That’s not what your analogy represents. Your analogy is in fact fundamentally flawed. The following analogy demonstrates why:
Math : Literanture :: Chemistry : Cooking
Indeed, science cannot study things that cannot be studied by science. The problem here is that you don’t appreciate just what it is that can be studied by science.
I’ve read all of the first page and skimmed the next two. Anyway, my question is…
Is my knowledge of the Cosmological argument out of date? I am not seeing anything in the discussion about the infinite regression of events, or the ‘Principle of Causality.’ For instance, saying the Universe simply is, and does not need a cause, seems to just be throwing that principle out. So is it not regarded very highly anymore? Thanks.
Welcome to SDMB. Just FYI, I think people here prefer if you start a new thread rather than “bumping” an old one like this. But since it’s already done, let me see if I can shed some light on this.
The “principle of causality”, as you call it, is something that is an observable part of the universe, but that doesn’t mean it necessarily applies to the universe as a whole, or transcends the universe. Cosmological theory holds that if you trace the development of the universe backwards in time, it does not regress infinitely, but rather reaches a point that they have named the “Big Bang”. To quote our friend Stephen Hawking:
Or the Reader’s Digest version:
You can’t apply the “principle of causality” to “before” the Big Bang, because the principle breaks down at the moment of the Big Bang.
According to our limited understanding of singularities, if the universe did form from one, then any information from the universe’s “previous” states would have been wiped out. From our perspective, it would be meaningless to ask what happened “before” the Big Bang.
Well, welcome back and welcome Stephanos. Actually, I intended this thread to be bumped every once in a while so as not to unnecessarily cover old ground - having to read a few dense pages before even posting to a new thread puts some people off, and the same points are obviously going to be repeated by those who can’t be bothered.
Anyway Steph, yes I do believe the Principle of Causality loses its power when speaking of the singularity (or near-singularity) and the Planck epoch.
events, cause, previous, before: These words have meaning only in the part of the universe where time exists.
Once one accepts that the nature of the Singularity-Type-Object which lies at one end of the universe does not necessarily have any timelike properties then these words and the notions encapsulated therein lose their meaning.