Author
|
Topic: Intelligent Falling (Read 1127 times) |
|
Bass
Magister
Posts: 196
Reputation: 6.20
Rate Bass
I'm a llama!
|
 |
Intelligent Falling
« on: 2007-01-06 16:28:36 » |
 |
Lately I have come to the conclusion that Reductio ad absurdum cannot disprove intelligent falling. Yeah, we call what we cannot understand "God". So?
I'd like mathematical theory/ formulae that can dissolve what I know (in my calloused heart) to be true. Give me the formula allowing three things to be accounted for in the laws of gravity.
Gravity exists. WHY? Why not? I'd like proof that the only reason I can't fly is because Newton didn't think his cunning plan all the way through.
Any thoughs?
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.66
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
 
|
|
Re:Intelligent Falling
« Reply #1 on: 2007-01-06 17:37:07 » |
|
Quote from: Bass on 2007-01-06 16:28:36
Lately I have come to the conclusion that Reductio ad absurdum cannot disprove intelligent falling. Yeah, we call what we cannot understand "God". So?
I'd like mathematical theory/ formulae that can dissolve what I know (in my calloused heart) to be true. Give me the formula allowing three things to be accounted for in the laws of gravity.
Gravity exists. WHY? Why not? I'd like proof that the only reason I can't fly is because Newton didn't think his cunning plan all the way through.
Any thoughs?
|
Laurie Anderson- Walking & Falling lyrics
"I wanted you. And I was looking for you. But I couldn't find you. I wanted you. And I was looking for you all day. But I couldn't find you. I couldn't find you. You're walking. And you don't always realize it, but you're always falling. With each step you fall forward slightly. And then catch yourself from falling. Over and over, you're falling. And then catching yourself from falling. And this is how you can be walking and falling at the same time."
|
|
|
|
|
Perplextus
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 55
Reputation: 7.30
Rate Perplextus
|
|
Re:Intelligent Falling
« Reply #2 on: 2007-01-07 08:38:03 » |
|
Why should one adopt the theory of gravity (Newtonian or Relativistic, take your pick) as opposed to the theory of "Intelligent Falling"? Because the theory of gravity allows us to make predictions. It is, simply, more useful. You cannot codify into mathematical formulae the theory of "Intelligent Falling", because at bottom the theory states that objects fall because of the "free will" (read: unpredictable!) of some supernatural entity. One could not justify any predictions, because that entity could easily change its mind at any moment and grant "exceptions" at whim...in a Universe like that, we would literally have no reason to expect one moment to resemble another, unless we could be reasonably sure that the entity WOULDN'T change its mind, ever. At which point, we would develop a theory of gravity functionally indistinct from our current theory. In fact, the only difference is that the theory would be explained as describing not a "fundamental force of the Universe" but rather as describing "the Unchanging Will of God"...which might as well be the same thing, anyway.
Science is not supposed to tell us much of "why" things are the way they are; it's supposed to tell us "how" things work, given that they are the way they are. Science is a tool for understanding how the Universe works; given that the universe is the way it is, knowledge of "why" it is that way is frankly useless. Sure, it might satisfy some idle curiousity, but it won't help survive. This is why I think the question of "where did the Universe come from?" is one of the most boring and irrelevant questions--unless it is necessary to know the answer to it in order to understand where the Universe is going.
I'm not sure if this answers your question or not (were you looking for someone to logically disprove intelligent falling, or mathematically PROVE its possibility?).
|
Praise Bob!
|
|
|
|
|
Perplextus
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 55
Reputation: 7.30
Rate Perplextus
|
|
Re:Intelligent Falling
« Reply #4 on: 2007-01-08 13:11:18 » |
|
Quote:
I think Bass is correct, God is another name for ignorance. |
Getting someone to admit that their concept of God is just "that which science hasn't explained yet" usually means it's a small effort to get them to take the final leap into Atheism...or at least to admit that their concept of "God" is inconsistent with the definition and connotations of the term, and that they ought to give it a different name.
It's amazing how many people don't REALLY believe in God (or souls, or an afterlife), but still claim to because they wish they did. An Atheist out-reach program could do wonders for such people.
|
Praise Bob!
|
|
|
Fox
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 122
Reputation: 8.02
Rate Fox
Never underestimate the odds.
|
|
Re:Intelligent Falling
« Reply #5 on: 2007-01-08 18:43:40 » |
|
Quote from: Bass on 2007-01-06 16:28:36 | Lately I have come to the conclusion that Reductio ad absurdum cannot disprove intelligent falling. |
From my perspective this tends to be dependent on how you exactly look at and interpret it, as is the case with most logic. I however would disagree with you.
Intelligent Falling suggests that an intelligent entity is solely responsible for what we know as gravity, and asserts to the idea that things fall because a higher intelligence is moving them.
Let's focus on the "intelligent" aspect of this first. Would it not be a reduction to absurdity to believe that by merely falling from a height, a 10,000 piece unmade jigsaw could land completely pieced together before hitting the ground?
Even by putting the science aside here and still saying that gravity is an “intelligent” force, or controlled by such, let us logically experiment. If we throw an unmade 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle into the air, thus allowing this "intelligent" entity to take effect on it, would the puzzle be completely and correctly assembled upon hitting the ground? Of course not, but don’t take my word for it, try it for yourself. So this doesn't really say much for the "intelligent" aspect of IF (Intelligent Falling), so (hypothetically speaking) this "entity" is much more likely to have the mental equivalent of a cabbage rather being able to deem it as "intelligent". My above example can aslo be applied to many other similiar situations.
Another example is this: Take an Egyptian pyramid, or a sphinx apart in an orderly way, muddle all the pieces up togeather and then drop them from say 10,000 feet. Now do you really think that these pieces of rock would land in exactly the same way as you took them apart?
As far as I can logically see, to accept the above examples as "truth" or fact is absurd and untenable - quite incapable of being defended.
If you can find me such an example where this is so then you might be on to something, but I'm very confident when I say that "Intelligent Falling" is already an invalid myth which bears no reality on the universe we know.
Next, let's look at dark energy (which makes up around 70-73% of our universe) which, according to the Theory of Relativity, permeates all of space with a strong negative pressure which is the strong equivilent of a force acting in opposition to gravity at large scales, which repulses rather then attracts; in other words it counteracts gravity. How would “Intelligent Falling” account for this? If gravity is simply due to some “higher intelligence” why can dark energy act in opposition to it and defy it? Gravity is a force which attracts, yet dark energy is a force, and the reason why stars and galaxies are flying away from each other so quickly and acting against gravity… It would seem as if this “creator” (as suggested by “Intelligent Falling”) is powerless to act out against or overcome this dark energy, according to observations. Also worth noting here is that if the dark energy rate keeps on increasing then in about 20 billion years the repulsive force caused via its sheer negative pressure is predicted to become so strong that it actually rips galaxies, stars, solar systems and even atoms apart; and there is not a damn thing that gravity (or the “creator” from IF assertion) can do about it… doesn’t sound like much of a “god” to me.
Also worth remembering is that Dark energy accounts for around 70% of everything in our universe, and since it evidently acts in opposition to gravity at large scales the so called “will of god” cannot be omnipresent; in effect with this omnipotence and also goes out the cosmological window, resulting in a rather flawed and disabled “god”. Perhaps then believers would start calling Dark energy “the devil”, which then one could say, “If the devil makes up 70-73% of the universe then this “god” is much weaker then the “devil”; Not a perfect being by any account. So both scientifically and mythological the very idea of “Intelligent Falling” is ridiculously flawed, but it does make for some interesting mythical discussion. As far as science is concerned IF has no bearings, evidence, place or reality of any kind that I myself know of in our universe, so to abandon the theory of gravity for “Intelligent Falling” is simply irrational.
According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity (a strong scientific theory), gravity travels at the speed of light. Taking into account here that gravity is an observably universal force, and that our universe is 156 billion light years in diameter, if gravity really was just the many multiple actions of a puppeteer, or creator, it would take time for the actions of this creator to cross the whole universe, since the force is happening everywhere. Now since gravity is constantly happening all the time within our universe, this creator would need to act and react instantaneously and constantly in a single omniscient/omnipresent thought; this is impossible in the universe we know since it would violate Einstein’s general and special relativity; if gravity is controlled by an intelligent creator then this creator would need to act constantly and instantaneously since gravity is everywhere and constantly happening. But all information within our universe must take time to reach a certain destination, thus can nothing ever act instantaneously, or constant in such a conscious/willful way, especially in a universe which is 156 billion light years wide; in other words - everything requires time to happen - gravity is constantly and continuously happening at vast distinces; no single force/entity (since nothing can exceed the speed of light) can manipulate gravity all at once in the same instant across such vast distances. It should also be noted here that no current observations are, or ever have been inconsistent with General Relativity.
What makes this all even more plausible is that the theory of gravity allows us to make fantasicly accurate predictions on space-time mathematically and scientifically, whreras “Intelligent falling” does not make a single scientific prediction which can stand up to observation or experimentation.
Another flaw in IF is that scientific predictions become impossible for evidential research to progress.
And the we have String theory, which is a mathematical theory that can well explain the theoretical concept of gravity at the quantum level, and without the need of any “intelligent creator” pulling gravitational strings. String theory neatly and mathematically stitches General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics together in a mathematical theory. The only problem is that we cannot physically test this new mathematical approach, and so it remains a mathematical theory and not a scientific one. The reason we have such a hard time in trying to observe gravitons can also be answered with M-Theory, which is basically the bigger advanced version of string theory. For a deeper insight into this brilliant approach I would highly recommend The Elegant Universe DVD or book for study if you are new to this field.
“Intelligent Falling”, like “Irreducible Complexity”, is little more then another invalid myth, and a vain component trying desperately to justify “Intelligent Design”, by exploiting and manipulating the rational ignorance of science with religious assertion. It is a common fact that what science has not yet discovered, or classed as fact, religion will try to take advantage of. Why does it do this? Because religion does not require evidencial research nor reason to justify its claims (which is why delusional concepts such as “faith” and “belief” are so important to irrational religions) so it may easily manipulate and control those under its dogmatic sway.
As evidence of what I say, consider the fact that we live in a time where atheism has never been so strong before it. Why? Because science has evolved and is providing answers, saving lives and establishing facts which religion could never live up to. In short people are becoming more rationally aware and are abandoning irrrational ideologies in favor of scientific reasoning. Of course the human race still has a long way to go, but my prediction is that as science becomes stronger and stronger so to shall we, allowing us to cast out (over time and evolution) the crutch of religious thought and dogma from our world.
Quote from: Bass on 2007-01-06 16:28:36 | Yeah, we call what we cannot understand "God". So? |
I would argue here that we call what we cannot understand belief, not “God”; Hard evidence would be required and requisite for us to able to call anything “God”, which doesn’t scientifically or logically exist as we know it. God is better, and simply understood as an acronym for ignorance.
Quote from: Bass on 2007-01-06 16:28:36 | I'd like mathematical theory/ formulae that can dissolve what I know (in my calloused heart) to be true. |
The following here is just my interpretation, which I find to be very helpful.
Truth equals a subjective reality over an objective fact. Reality thus equals interpretation over interaction. Truth is vastly individual and will vary depending on how we have interpreted and interacted with what we know of a certain objective thing - which itself falls victim to the various factors of subjective interpretation (i.e. if you're color blind for instance).
Quote from: Bass on 2007-01-06 16:28:36 | Give me the formula allowing three things to be accounted for in the laws of gravity. |
Long ago people had knows for thousands of years that objects fall down, but they didn’t know exactly how, or why. Along with his three laws of motion, Newton's law of gravity led directly to mathematical explanations of Galileo's falling object experiments:
F=GMm/d^2
Where F is the force of gravity, G is a constant (the Gravitational Constant) and d is the distance between them, with M and m being the two masses.
Einstein explained on how massive objects curve space-time with which he devised a beautiful set of equations (http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/test/Einstein35.html). They can be written in a beautifully simple form:
G(ab) = k T(ab)
Where G(ab) is the Einstein tensor, T(ab) is the stress-energy tensor and κ is a constant.
The first thing Einstein did after establishing his equations was solve the orbit of Mercury. He picked out the aspect which Newton's theory could not account for, and saw that his theory of general relativity predicted it correctly.
Quote from: Bass on 2007-01-06 16:28:36 I'd like proof that the only reason I can't fly is because Newton didn't think his cunning plan all the way through.
|
It’s not that Newton didn’t think his “plan” all the way through, just that he didn’t fully understand it. You see Newton held an embarrassing secret, he had no idea how gravity actually worked, he only understood the effects and basic causation of it.
|
I've never expected a miracle. I will get things done myself. - Gatsu
|
|
|
|
Logged
