Can critical thinking explain why we are here?

[Kuciwalker]

How is predictive power relevant when you leave behind repeatability as a requirement for what can be considered science?

It doesn't matter if I can repeat experiments, Jon, as long as I can further test my theory. In this case, my theory would be "God's goal is X", which clearly has predictive power.

[Jon Miller]

There is a difference.

I can take the f(x) =x^2 and make general statements on it based on its properties.

I can also take f(x) = x^2 and other similar ones, and discover properties of slope/min/max/integral/etc.

I can use these to gain understand of other relationships which I don't have an infinte table for.

A matrix of inputs -> results is fundamentally unsatisfactory in modern science. It loses us the intuition and understanding that have been the driving force of our progress in science for the last 100+ years. We use, over and over again, notions like symmetry and groups to make scientific discoveries.

JM

[Felch]

I'll add some sophistry as soon as it hits 4:20

My man

I propose that no one read any post by Frosty without getting a little buzz going first. It might lighten the mood around here.

KH, I give you a dispensation. You're allowed to drink, but only if you drop a little tab of acid into your beer.

[Jon Miller]

It doesn't matter if I can repeat experiments, Jon, as long as I can further test my theory. In this case, my theory would be "God's goal is X", which clearly has predictive power.

How would you test "God's goal is X"?

I mean, I guess you could test "God's goal is to get Kuci to Seattle next Thursday". I fail to see how that is any more science then the test I just did of "Kuci is going to appear in my office at 10:17 am Aug 6 2009".

JM

[Kuciwalker]

There is a difference.

No, there really isn't, Jon, THE DEFINITION OF A FUNCTION IS A SET OF ORDERED PAIRS.

How would you test "God's goal is X"?

I already explained this, Jon. We continually restrict the set of goals God could have by eliminating the ones that are inconsistent with his actions. Additionally, we sort the remaining goals by how closely they match the actual results (this is purely an optimization step).

[Jon Miller]

I can take measurements of "Kuci is not in my office" all I want. More and more measurements don't actually mean much, as what matters is that you have no plans to come to my office.

If I knew more of your plans, I could pick some place that you had never been to before. I would have infinte measurements of you not being there, but obviously no predictive power about you being there in the future.

In this example, we have two humans/etc. Now imagine that you can controlled in what way you appeared and what was going on at all locations of space-time and what you looked like when you appeared.

How would I be able to make any statements at all?

JM

[Asher]

Those other disciplines are just not very useful for getting the trains to run on time.

They also cause Asheron's head to explode.

Two things:

Asheron's Call
Arts majors driving the trains, can't get them to arrive on schedule

[Jon Miller]

No, there really isn't, Jon, THE DEFINITION OF A FUNCTION IS A SET OF ORDERED PAIRS.

But that gives us no greater knowledge of what functions are, what they mean, what their properties are. If we always used ordered pairs, we would never have developed mathematics.

And in some case where we can't have all ordered pairs, for example. Then we could use our knowledge of functions/etc to predict where we don't have all ordered pairs.

This is what is done in science. We have a large area where we don't have measurements. We have general knowledge of science/etc. Then we can make predictions about all the areas we don't have measurements.

One of the biggest 'general knowldge of science' things is the scientific laws (or functions) are the same now as they were yesterday and 100 years ago. In a general sense they don't have to be.

JM

[aneeshm]

Science can explain how we got here, but could it ever explain why we are here? I think that is a more important question, and when I say "we" I don't mean us humans, I mean all of existence.

I'm not suggesting that people of faith have the ability to find that answer, just wondering what it would take to find out the why, not the how.

Before anything else, I must ask - is it necessary that there be some purpose to existence? Why do you assume that existence exists "for" something? Is it not possible that things just are, without any reason for their being?

[DaShi]

Then how can you make moral judgements?

[KrazyHorse]

How is predictive power relevant when you leave behind repeatability as a requirement for what can be considered science?

I have no idea what the hell you mean by this. Just because you can't repeat the same experiment at will does not mean that there won't be other observations which come your way.

[chequita guevara]

Is there a reason for existence?

No, there is no reason for existence. It just exists. Only intelligence can have reasons.

[chequita guevara]

I want to assume there is a why, because it would make more sense (ironically).

And this is the crux of everything that is wrong with your question. As the rest of us understood, you are engaging in an anthropic fallacy. The universe is not under any obligation to make sense to you. You aren't even under any obligation to make sense of the universe. Billions of people can have completely enjoyable lives believing things which are not true and not believing in things which are true.

[FrostyBoy]

People are irrelevant.

[FrostyBoy]

Before anything else, I must ask - is it necessary that there be some purpose to existence? Why do you assume that existence exists "for" something? Is it not possible that things just are, without any reason for their being?

I'm fine with the idea that there be no purpose but I prefer there were one.