Belief. What exactly is it?

[duderonomy]

8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'd say no, Midniterider.

 

The current mismatch between quantum mechanics and general relativity tells us that we do not currently have a 'Theory of Everything'.  One that explains the physics of the universe, from the biggest to the smallest scales.

 

Yet, using QM on its own gives astoundingly accurate results.  As does using GR on its own.  Both QM and GR give us reliable knowledge about the universe.

 

Perhaps the trick is to just accept that all such knowledge is provisional and tentative.  That way, whatever confidence we place in it is also acknowledged to be provisional and tentative.   

 

The handy side effect of doing this is that we never fool ourselves into believing that we have absolute knowledge and therefore absolute confidence.  Given the flawed and fumbling nature of the human condition, I'd submit that this is probably the best we can do.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Walter, I think you are getting it.

 

What if QM fully realized shows GR to be inaccurate? What if GR is correct and blows QM out of the water?

If there is a mismatch between the two theories do you believe there is a (theoretical) time where the two theories will converge? 

 

Also you said,  "Perhaps the trick is to just accept that all such knowledge is provisional and tentative.  That way, whatever confidence we place in it is also acknowledged to be provisional and tentative". 

 

'Confidence', 'tentative', 'best that we can do' (etc.), and yet you think you know more than I do about what faith vs. belief is when I say belief comes and goes but faith is a knowing?

 

  

 

 

[midniterider]

10 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'd say no, Midniterider.

 

The current mismatch between quantum mechanics and general relativity tells us that we do not currently have a 'Theory of Everything'.  One that explains the physics of the universe, from the biggest to the smallest scales.

 

Yet, using QM on its own gives astoundingly accurate results.  As does using GR on its own.  Both QM and GR give us reliable knowledge about the universe.

 

Perhaps the trick is to just accept that all such knowledge is provisional and tentative.  That way, whatever confidence we place in it is also acknowledged to be provisional and tentative.   

 

The handy side effect of doing this is that we never fool ourselves into believing that we have absolute knowledge and therefore absolute confidence.  Given the flawed and fumbling nature of the human condition, I'd submit that this is probably the best we can do.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Yeah, for the average human being, whatever we call knowledge gets us through the day.  

[walterpthefirst]

8 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Walter, I think you are getting it.

 

What if QM fully realized shows GR to be inaccurate? What if GR is correct and blows QM out of the water?

If there is a mismatch between the two theories do you believe there is a (theoretical) time where the two theories will converge? 

 

What follows is just an opinion Duderonomy, nothing more.  So please don't take it as gospel.  (Pun intended.)  

 

In my opinion neither QM nor GR can be 'blown out of the water'.  That's because both have been rigorously tested and because both are so widely used in so many  applications today that any detectable discrepancy would be noticed, would be seized upon by eager scientists and would become global headline news overnight.  That hasn't happened.  Yet.

 

Instead there's a historical precedent for the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of QM and GR. 

 

For hundreds of years Newton's model of gravity was the one accepted by the scientific community.  It appeared to work well and explain what we saw, except when it came to predicting the orbit of the planet Mercury.  That problem showed that Newtonian gravity wasn't a full and complete description of the way gravity functions.  In the early years of the 20th century Einstein's General theory of Relativity succeeded in solving the Mercury problem.  It is now the go-to model of gravitation and is generally accepted by the scientific community.

 

But what about Newtonian gravity?  Is it 'wrong'?

 

The answer is Yes and No.  Yes, it's wrong in that it can't be used to describe or explain extremely high gravitational fields, such as we find around massive objects like stars, black holes and galaxy clusters.  Because Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun it is most strongly affected by the Sun's high gravitational field.  This is why Newtonian gravity couldn't explain the deviations in its orbit.  

 

And No, Newtonian gravity is not entirely wrong because it is widely used by NASA and the other space agencies to predict the paths of their space probes through our solar system.  So you see Duderonomy, the situation isn't a black-and-white right and wrong.  There are caveats and subtleties and nuances to account for.

 

The probes launched to Mercury and to study the Sun do use Newtonian gravity, but where it breaks down GR takes over.  In the same way GPS satellites orbiting Earth use Newtonian gravity for their orbits, but the scientists monitoring them use GR to compensate for deviations introduced by the Earth's gravitational field.  Which is something Newtonian gravity cannot do.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

 

Finally, in answer to your question will QM and GR converge... I just don't know.  Sorry about that. 

 

 

8 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Also you said,  "Perhaps the trick is to just accept that all such knowledge is provisional and tentative.  That way, whatever confidence we place in it is also acknowledged to be provisional and tentative". 

 

'Confidence', 'tentative', 'best that we can do' (etc.), and yet you think you know more than I do about what faith vs. belief is when I say belief comes and goes but faith is a knowing?

 

 

 

With all due respect, I did not say that I knew more than you do about faith vs. belief.

 

If you recall alreadyGone and I asked you to explain what you meant by faith being a knowing.  Obviously I can't speak for alreadyGone, but I would hazard that his interest in your usage of the word 'faith' is somewhat similar to mine.  Perhaps we are both bothered by the supernatural and religious baggage that this word carries with it?  To find out you would have to ask him yourself.  That is, if you wish to revisit our discussion of why faith is a knowing.

 

I suggest that instead of either of us claiming to know more than the other about this topic, what is actually happening is that we disagreeing about the definitions of certain words, what contexts they apply in and how they should be used.

 

Perhaps we should thrash this out and see where it takes us?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[duderonomy]

On 8/5/2022 at 5:47 AM, walterpthefirst said:

In my opinion neither QM nor GR can be 'blown out of the water'.  That's because both have been rigorously tested and because both are so widely used in so many  applications today that any detectable discrepancy would be noticed, would be seized upon by eager scientists and would become global headline news overnight.  That hasn't happened.  Yet.

 

Have you ever studied logical fallacies Walter? I make them too, so no offense. 

 

What I'm asking is how many can you spot in the paragraph I quoted here?

 

 

Edited to add: I ask this because it seems like the rest of your post was largely based on it.

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Have you ever studied logical fallacies Walter? I make them too, so no offense. 

 

What I'm asking is how many can you spot in the paragraph I quoted here?

 

 

Edited to add: I ask this because it seems like the rest of your post was largely based on it.

 

We all make them, Duderonomy.  So, I'd be happy to see where I did so.

 

I was expressing an opinion, so I suppose that gives me a bit of leeway.  There's also a bit of unresolved tension between my two statements, one in an earlier post and one in the part you quoted.  I can also see that you and I might be interpreting 'blown out of the water' in different ways.  Other than that, no I can see where I've messed up. 

 

A logical fallacy usually means that there's a serious or fatal flaw in an argument.  So please let me know.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[duderonomy]

19 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

We all make them, Duderonomy.  So, I'd be happy to see where I did so.

 

I was expressing an opinion, so I suppose that gives me a bit of leeway.  There's also a bit of unresolved tension between my two statements, one in an earlier post and one in the part you quoted.  I can also see that you and I might be interpreting 'blown out of the water' in different ways.  Other than that, no I can see where I've messed up. 

 

A logical fallacy usually means that there's a serious or fatal flaw in an argument.  So please let me know.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Let's start with the assumption that almost of us here only want the truth.

 

May I offer up a suggestion that others, perhaps more learned than you and I, look at the the paragraph I quoted and give their opinions? 

 

Here is the paragraph in question:  

On 8/5/2022 at 5:47 AM, walterpthefirst said:

In my opinion neither QM nor GR can be 'blown out of the water'.  That's because both have been rigorously tested and because both are so widely used in so many  applications today that any detectable discrepancy would be noticed, would be seized upon by eager scientists and would become global headline news overnight.  That hasn't happened.  Yet.

 

I see where you assert your opinion that both QM and GR stand because both have been -wait for it- "rigorously tested".

You have faith in that?  But what if you learn a little more and believe something different down the road?

 

"Widely used"  That's an easy one.

 

Your "Eager Scientists" = "Studies Say" "Studies Suggest".     I say put up or shut up, myself. Of course, I wasn't brainwashed and blindsided by the bullshit myself back in the day, except for this: 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

25 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

 

Let's start with the assumption that almost of us here only want the truth.

 

 

I believe the truth is that you left a word out of that sentence.  And all this time I thought you were Mr. Perfection.

[walterpthefirst]

Hello Duderonomy.

 

Your latest post covers a lot of ground, so I'm going to have to break my replies down into separate messages.

 

 

"Let's start with the assumption that almost of us here only want the truth."

 

 

 That assumption isn’t as simple and clear cut as you might think.

 

For a start, science never claims to deal with or to deliver ‘truth’.  It’s only a tool for describing and explaining the natural world, nothing more.  Science can say nothing about the meaning or purpose of reality and it is silent on all matters of spirituality, faith, theology and religion.

 

Nor does science claim to deal with or to deliver absolute truth.  This is a common misunderstanding, where many people mistakenly think that science proves things and so something that is proven by science must be absolutely true.  But only mathematics deals in proofs.  The empirical sciences do not.

 

That is why all the findings of empirical science are tentative and provisional.  They can be overturned by new data.  If that sounds like it contradicts what I said about QM and GR not being blown out of the water because they have been so rigorously tested, it shouldn’t.

 

I have explained about GR superseding Newtonian gravity.  GR did not blow Newtonian gravity out of the water because Newtonian gravity still works within the framework it was designed to.  Outside of that framework, it doesn’t.  That’s a subtle distinction, but there it is.

 

In the same way (my opinion, again) I think that the same will happen when a new theory successfully combines QM and GR.  That new theory will supersede both of them, but each of them will still work within the framework they were designed to.  Just like Newtonian gravity, neither of them will be blown out of the water.  They will be absorbed into and superseded by a better, overarching theory.

 

Now, returning to the ‘truth’.  I must ask you if think something that is only a tool to describe physical reality and which can say nothing about meaning or purpose can ever be the truth.  Your assumption was that almost all of us here only want the truth.  But I hold the position that science can never be the truth that we all want.  I have never claimed otherwise.

 

Therefore, given my stance on science, do I still come under your assumption and does it still apply to me?

 

Can I be using science to give me the truth when I acknowledge that it doesn't and can't do that?

 

Does you argument still hold water if the assumption it is based upon doesn't really apply to me?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

(More to come)

 

[walterpthefirst]

9 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

May I offer up a suggestion that others, perhaps more learned than you and I, look at the the paragraph I quoted and give their opinions? 

 

Here is the paragraph in question:  

 

I see where you assert your opinion that both QM and GR stand because both have been -wait for it- "rigorously tested".

You have faith in that?  But what if you learn a little more and believe something different down the road?

 

 

No Duderonomy, I do not have 'faith' in that.

 

The word faith is so loaded with religious and supernatural baggage that I try not to use it in secular matters, such as science.  Instead, I prefer to say that I have secular confidence in the rigorous testing of QM and GR.

 

If I learn a little more then I will transfer my secular confidence to something different down the road.  Which is no more than what scientists should do when a new theory overturns an old one.  This transference is fully covered by my stance on the tentative and provisional nature of all empirical science.

 

All scientists should be sufficiently open minded to yield under the weight of new data and new discoveries, giving up their long-held confidence in a particular theory and embracing a new one.  But, scientists are human beings and sometimes that is too big an ask and they become stuck where they, unable to let go of the past and unable to embrace the new.  Such is life.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

9 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

"Widely used"  That's an easy one.

 

Your "Eager Scientists" = "Studies Say" "Studies Suggest".     I say put up or shut up, myself. Of course, I wasn't brainwashed and blindsided by the bullshit myself back in the day, except for this: 

 

 

 

Now here's where things could get contentious between us.

 

That secular confidence in science that I described earlier isn't just something peculiar to me.  You have it as well.  You have it and you use it every day.  We all do.  Every time we use some machine, device, product or service that science has given us and which we do not understand how it works we are expressing a secular confidence in science.

 

So that means almost everything in our daily lives.  If you want to talk specifically about GR and QM, you have secular confidence in them too.  GR is vital to the GPS signals that your satnav needs to work.  And every computer you have uses QM to function.  How much of life and how many things that you use without thinking depend entirely on computers?

 

Your work?  Your bank details?  Every electronic device in your home, in your car and in the community where you live?  The air, sea, rail and road transport systems you use?  The medical services of your hospital?  The power, water and gas supplies to your home?  All of the defence systems your government uses to keep you safe?  The education of your children?  The tv, cable, satellite and internet services that keep you informed and entertained?   All of it uses QM.

 

You are using QM right now to read these words and this act of usage is an expression of your secular confidence in what science has done for you.  I'd lay good money that at no time have your ever NOT used all of the things I listed because you thought you were being blindsided and brainwashed by others.  Therefore, in asking me to put up or shut up you are employing a double standard.

 

You are no different from me when it comes to your secular confidence in science.  Because we are exactly alike in this respect, you have no grounds in asking me to justify myself by putting up or shutting up.  You would have grounds for doing this if you didn't implicitly trust the science that surrounds you, just as I do.  But I submit that you do trust everything I've mentioned here just as much as I do and everyone else here does.  And therefore I have no case to answer.

 

 

Ok Duderomony, let's not fall out over this. 

 

If I wrong, I'm wrong.  I'll apologize and take back all that I've written here.  If you don't trust and don't have the same secular confidence in science that I do and that everyone else here does, then I'll concede and yield.

 

But you'll need to demonstrate that you don't because that's not something I can accept from you on faith.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[duderonomy]

22 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

I believe the truth is that you left a word out of that sentence.  And all this time I thought you were Mr. Perfection.

 

 

Weezer, you're correct. I meant to say "fuckin" assumption.

 

No one is perfect son, save the Lord himself. I should have told you this when you were younger.

 

I'm sorry I let you down.

 

 

[duderonomy]

13 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

 

 

Ok Duderomony, let's not fall out over this. 

 

If I wrong, I'm wrong.  I'll apologize and take back all that I've written here.  If you don't trust and don't have the same secular confidence in science that I do and that everyone else here does, then I'll concede and yield.

 

But you'll need to demonstrate that you don't because that's not something I can accept from you on faith.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Walter,

 

You say you don't accept what I say on faith.  Interesting. 

 

But enough of this. Let's get back to the OP.

 

Do you have faith that the earth revolves around the sun, or do you believe it does? 

[walterpthefirst]

20 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Walter,

 

You say you don't accept what I say on faith.  Interesting. 

 

Let's be as accurate as we can here Duderonomy, so that neither of us is left in any doubt. 

 

What I actually said (and what is meant) is that when it comes to our secular confidence you and I are alike.  Therefore, in that context (and that context alone) if you claimed that you don't have that same secular confidence THAT is what I couldn't accept from you on faith.  I'd need evidence from you that you and I are not alike on this one issue.

 

Please don't take what I wrote as a catchall statement that I don't accept anything that you say on faith.

 

I might accept some things from you on faith, but that would be on a case by case basis.

 

20 hours ago, duderonomy said:

But enough of this. Let's get back to the OP.

 

Do you have faith that the earth revolves around the sun, or do you believe it does? 

 

I have secular confidence in the scientific evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

 

Provided that this is taken into account I'm happy to say that I believe it does.

 

But my use of the word belief here carries no religious, supernatural or theological connotations.

 

Nor would I use the word faith here, for the same reason.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[walterpthefirst]

Thinking a little more about the either/or choice you offered me, Duderonomy...

 

 

Do you have faith that the earth revolves around the sun, or do you believe it does? 

 

 

I think you've committed a logical fallacy.

 

https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/false-dilemma/

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

11 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

No one is perfect son, save the Lord himself. I should have told you this when you were younger.

 

I'm sorry I let you down.

 

You probably were not around when I was younger.  

 

But since splitting hairs is not my thing, I am out of here.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

57 minutes ago, Weezer said:

You probably were not around when I was younger.  

 

But since splitting hairs is not my thing, I am out of here.

As I get older, I find I have fewer hairs to split.

[duderonomy]

16 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Thinking a little more about the either/or choice you offered me, Duderonomy...

 

 

Do you have faith that the earth revolves around the sun, or do you believe it does? 

 

 

I think you've committed a logical fallacy.

 

https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/false-dilemma/

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Dang it ya long winded varmint! Ya got me!  I'm hoisted on my own retard!

 

Now do you.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Dang it ya long winded varmint! Ya got me!  I'm hoisted on my own retard!

 

Now do you.

 

 

 

Sorry Duderonomy, but was that last sentence a question?

 

 

[duderonomy]

19 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Sorry Duderonomy, but was that last sentence a question?

 

 

 Did it end with a "." or a "?" 

[walterpthefirst]

It ended with a ".", making it a statement that I don't understand.

 

If it had ended with a "?" it would have been a question that I wouldn't have understood.

 

Either way, I'm puzzled.

 

 

 

[duderonomy]

I was puzzled once.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 hours ago, duderonomy said:

I was puzzled once.

I was missing a peace once.

[duderonomy]

14 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I was missing a peace once.

 

Well, may peace be upon you now Prof.

[duderonomy]

In my defense, I never kilt a thread that didn't need killin'.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

Good at killin you are.