Quote:
—————————————-——————————–
i think it is a bit silly for scientists to go so far as to rule out God here. As if simply because it involves nature that there was no supernatural being involved.
—————————————-——————————–

Science is concerned with what is provable within science. It’s a closed system of rules, laws, and theories that cannot take into account anything which is outside its own scope. So rather than saying “God does not exist”, science says “God is beyond the scope of the equation”. It very well could be that all natural phenomena are caused by God. I don’t happen to believe that’s true, but where science is concerned, God is an incalculable variable. You can’t put God into a theory because you have no idea of the effects of God upon the theory, because God is outside the scope of the rules that the theory is based on.

I know that probably was completely incomprehensible. I guess what I’m trying to say is that rather than saying God does or does not exist, that science sort of just ignores God for discussion purposes.

Now, as far as the whole 1+1!=2 and red!=red thing goes, I still think it’s complete crap. It’s pointless to try to prove or disprove a set of rules from outside the scope of the rules. It’s like saying “If you’re not playing cards, a King isn’t necessarily ranked higher than a Jack”. The statement has no relevance, because the ranking of the cards is only important if you are comparing one card to another. It has no bearing on how many calories are in a Big Mac.

The idea that just because we see “red” differently means that we can’t define “red” is also crap. It’s an objective truth that a wavelength of 650nm is what we’ve decided is the proper wavelength for the color red. The subjective observation of a red light as something other than red does not change the light itself. If you’re color-blind and can’t see the 650nm wavelength properly, it doesn’t completely invalidate the fact that if you shine a light of 650nm wavelength, that it is a red light. The fact that we also choose to call 640nm or 660nm red, even though we can visibly distinguish between the two, is just a convenience so that we don’t have to have names for every one of the 16,000 some colors that we can visibly distinguish.

When talking about an object, whether it be mathematics, colors, or cards, it only makes sense to talk about them in a scope that is relevant to the object being discussed, and not to the subject that’s observing it. I probably haven’t said this very well, but it all boils down to the fact that 1+1 DOES = 2, red is red is red, and a straight flush beats a full house.

A Stream of Pinkness?
Oh-So-Lovely
Posts: 31
(4/10/02 12:25:39 am)
Reply
Re: Scientists uncover Sodom’s fiery end
—————————————-——————————–
…and a tree falling in the forest makes noise whether there’s a human there to hear it or not.

NYAH.

Noiseman433
FLAMMABLE
Posts: 568
(4/10/02 3:36:31 am)
Reply | Edit
Re: Scientists uncover Sodom’s fiery end
—————————————-——————————–
methinks Shadis LEcrou?has “perfectly” described what interpretation is…

Quote:
—————————————-——————————–
Now, as far as the whole 1+1!=2 and red!=red thing goes, I still think it’s complete crap. It’s pointless to try to prove or disprove a set of rules from outside the scope of the rules. It’s like saying “If you’re not playing cards, a King isn’t necessarily ranked higher than a Jack”. The statement has no relevance, because the ranking of the cards is only important if you are comparing one card to another. It has no bearing on how many calories are in a Big Mac.

The idea that just because we see “red” differently means that we can’t define “red” is also crap. It’s an objective truth that a wavelength of 650nm is what we’ve decided is the proper wavelength for the color red. The subjective observation of a red light as something other than red does not change the light itself. If you’re color-blind and can’t see the 650nm wavelength properly, it doesn’t completely invalidate the fact that if you shine a light of 650nm wavelength, that it is a red light. The fact that we also choose to call 640nm or 660nm red, even though we can visibly distinguish between the two, is just a convenience so that we don’t have to have names for every one of the 16,000 some colors that we can visibly distinguish.

When talking about an object, whether it be mathematics, colors, or cards, it only makes sense to talk about them in a scope that is relevant to the object being discussed, and not to the subject that’s observing it. I probably haven’t said this very well, but it all boils down to the fact that 1+1 DOES = 2, red is red is red, and a straight flush beats a full house.
—————————————-——————————–

a wavelength is a wavelength…red is a subjective “interpretation” of the interaction of a particular wavelength of light on the retina–and HOW it is “interpreted” depends on the occular-neurophysiology of the individual doing the “interpreting”.

If we want to presume that a scientific definition/law/rule is dependant on the inductive strength of its instances (in this case, the co-occurance of a particular “kind” of occular-neurophysiology in conjunction with a particular wavelength of light), then if we want to call some particular wavelength, say, red then there probably shouldn’t be too many counter-examples, eh? At best we could say that:

given a particular wavelength of light (e.g. 650nm), in conjunction with a particular set of occular-neurophysiological conditions (e.g. people without color deficiency), then the visual response of that given group of individuals will be such that when they encounter that particular wavelength, they will agree that it is the color they are visually experiencing is “red”.

red is red is red only when someone has that particular “mental experience”

Quote:
—————————————-——————————–
If you’re color-blind and can’t see the 650nm wavelength properly, it doesn’t completely invalidate the fact that if you shine a light of 650nm wavelength, that it is a red light.
—————————————-——————————–

“properly”…funny, but for someone that is color-blind, that person is seeing the color as is “proper” for one of his/her condition to see…so if you shine a light of 650nm wavelength, then you shine a light of 650nm wavelength…no amount of nomic definitions will change that tautology…it is only a “red” light to someone that is capable of seeing it…or rather, when someone of a particular type of occular-neurophysiology interacts with a light of 650nm wavelength, then that person will visually experience what is by convention called “red” and by the protanope it may be what is by convention called “blue”…

…and a tree falling in the forest causes a “physical disturbance” that when some biological organism with some sort of aural-interpretive physiology (e.g. tympanic membrane) is present, will be able to “interpret” that “physical disturbance” as noise…

it seems ridiculous (and anthropomorphic) to postulate the existence of subjectively experienced humans sensations throughout the universe when there is no-one (thing) there to experience it…the universe is not made in man’s image…as much as we would like to play God…

(*an aside*–though if I were God, I would play with dice…)