14Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThis question can be posed in another way I.e. can there be an object in the absence of the subject ?
February 23rd, 2013, 12:07 PM
This question can be posed in another way I.e. can there be an object in the absence of the subject ?
Is this an attempt at "proving" there's a god?
The short answer is "yes" - the world (and the universe) was here before we started observing it.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; February 23rd, 2013 at 12:51 PM.
Does the moon cease to exist on cloudy nights? I doubt it.
Does the world cease to exist when you close your eyes? I don't think so.
This is the sort of speculation that gives philosophy a bad name.
The contents of my fridge disappear if I don't keep an eye on them!
Is this going to be another "hit and run" thread from you?
Let pose the question in another way. Can object exist in the eternal & absolute absence of observer ?
Let's try again.
1) Is this an attempt to prove "god"?
2) If we'd never arisen would the universe still be here?
Yes. Of course.Originally Posted by chandragupta
What possible reason would you have for thinking otherwise? Do you have examples of things that cease to exist when not watched?
water in a pot on a hot plate.
A question has appeared on my monitor, it's right in front of me. The question undoubtedly exists and because I can't deny it's not there then I have to say with absolute certainty that someone or something asked it. This is a reasonable conclusion to reach from what I know of questions and answers. To think otherwise I have to ask myself if a question needs a questioner, just like I'm doing right now. My problem is....I can't see nor do any of my senses indicate that the questioner exists, this I freely admit. Yet the question is there, so I need to ask myself how is it possible without any hard evidence of there being an asker. The question appearing on my monitor, did it come from nothing? In order to make total observational sense I must believe that there is someone asking because I know it isn't me.
For Christ's sakes, how can you ask that question? Don't you see the paradoxical nature of it?
I will say no. You possible cannot have a object in the absence of a subject.
-Japeth
Then how did we get here?
In order for us (observer) to arise there had to be an environment for us to arise in.
Japith: Thanks. I reconfigured the question a short while ago & now I re- quote it here. " Can there be object in eternal & absolute absence of observer"?
And I will requote my response, which you seem to have ignored:
Let's try again.
1) Is this an attempt to prove "god"?
2) If we'd never arisen would the universe still be here?
Yes. Of course.
What possible reason would you have for thinking otherwise? Do you have examples of things that cease to exist when not watched?
Can there be object in eternal & absolute absence of observer?
I still would answer no in my opinion.
It's logical. Without anyone to observe, the subject is null.
Actually your conclusion is illogical.
"Null" is not the same as "doesn't exist".
You are confusing what someone perceives with reality. Reality won't go away even if you screw your eyes shut, put your fingers in your ears and say 'la la la' in a loud voice. I know, I've tried it.
. Thanks. I agree.
Why?. Thanks. I agree.
And, just for information, is it your intention to ignore all posts that disagree with you?
Is also your intention to participate as little as possible in your own topic?
Do you have any justification for your stance?
How do you address the difference between "null" (i.e. might as well not exist, but could or could not) and "doesn't exist" (i.e. does not, in fact, [even with an observer] exist)?
Ahhhh. That's so sweet.. Thanks. I agree.
Yes existing of anything does not depend on observation. Maximum you can say there may be mystery or may not be. This mystery is not GOD, Soul or any other thing witch are products of human brain. If this mystery exist it will be out of science means out of best available knowledge of human beings. Religious things are not out of brain of human beings. These are so simple. Real mystery may be too surprising even no one can imagine.
But actually there may not be any mystery and things in space works according to scientific laws. No one knows.
your's is very thoughtful observation. Relationship between object & observer is a conundrum. Any further thought into ' how to open this conundrum a little bit?
Why is it a conundrum?
Could we have this moved to Trash please, since it's clearly not philosophy (and the other thread by the same poster)?
I don't think matter I.e. object can exist in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness I.e. observer because it is awareness who acknowledges the existence of matter. Matter cannot acknowledge its own existence.
You are confusing "acknowledgement" with "existence". Or do you really think the universe spontaneously sprang into being when the first human opened their eyes, magically looking 13 billion years old?
Incorrect.
It depends on what you mean by "acknowledge".
But, as a simple example, gravitational attraction is an "acknowledgement" of matter by matter.
Presumably, therefore, you mean "be consciously aware of" (and "aware that it's aware of".... ad infinitum).
FIRSTLY you'd have to show that conscious awareness actually IS required.
You assume this is so - on zero evidence.
Thanks. Question:- "Who created the language which contains the word ' gravitational attraction"?Incorrect.It depends on what you mean by "acknowledge".But, as a simple example, gravitational attraction is an "acknowledgement" of matter by matter.Presumably, therefore, you mean "be consciously aware of" (and "aware that it's aware of".... ad infinitum).FIRSTLY you'd have to show that conscious awareness actually IS required.You assume this is so - on zero evidence.
Well, absent speech-capable science-inclined snails (which would have been my first choice 1) I'd hazard a guess that it was humans.
Your "point"?
1 Especially if they had giant lasers.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; March 3rd, 2013 at 11:14 AM.
Yes it should be Law of nature would also work even if there is no observer
Is there a time restriction for observation? All observed reality is in the past. All observers too.
Last edited by zinjanthropos; March 3rd, 2013 at 12:05 PM.
No one created it. It evolved.
Even if for argument sake one temporarily accepts the possibility that matter can exist in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness, problem arises as to who will then confirm the existence of such a matter in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness, let alone start this forum & wonder how this beautiful universe started.No one created it. It evolved.
Hmm, you seem to be working from an a priori (and unfounded) assumption that your premise is incontrovertibly true.
This is an error on your part.
Um, no. This isn't a problem at all.problem arises as to who will then confirm the existence of such a matter in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness
Why does existence require confirmation?
All you're doing here is begging the question.
This is neither philosophy nor science (which seems to be a major feature of your threads).
Why does anyone need to "confirm it"; it just is.
This forum (and awareness of how beautiful the universe is) started after the arrival of intelligent self-aware humans.
The rest of the universe seemed to manage fine without us for 13 billion years.
Please take notice of the operative phrase : " In the eternal & absolute absence of awareness". Thanks.Why does anyone need to "confirm it"; it just is.This forum (and awareness of how beautiful the universe is) started after the arrival of intelligent self-aware humans. The rest of the universe seemed to manage fine without us for 13 billion years.
Let me help you move those goalposts, they look heavy.
Even if the universe never evolved any living things with intelligence, it would still exist. Why is awareness needed to "confirm" this.
You seem to be mistaking knowledge of something for the existence of something.
What is your evidence that the universe could not exist unless someone is around to confirm it?
Please take notice of the fact that you are still begging the question.
Why does existence require confirmation?
All this dialogue between us about matter would have not taken place in the eternal & absolute absence of awareness.Let me help you move those goalposts, they look heavy.Even if the universe never evolved any living things with intelligence, it would still exist. Why is awareness needed to "confirm" this. You seem to be mistaking knowledge of something for the existence of something.What is your evidence that the universe could not exist unless someone is around to confirm it?
So what?
WE are here.
Therefore, NOW, there isn't an "absence". Therefore that "absence" wasn't eternal or absolute.
That does not imply that existence requires awareness.
Please at least TRY to think coherently.
And does that mean the matter would not have existed? Of course not. It existed before humans were discussing it and it will continue to exist after humans have died out.
Do you actually have any intelligent arguments in favour of your assertion? Or is it just a baseless opinion?
It is clear that physical existence of anything can never depend on observation .
@Chandargupta , Was gravitational force working before it was discovered by Newton ?
How Big Bang happen when there was no living beings
Its very simple and no need to debate as no one should have doubt about it
I am unable to understand what do you think ?
In order to collapse the waveform.
Thank you very much. Even if, for argument sake, awareness accepts that matter had existed eternally all alone & can exist eternally all alone in the future too without the intervention of awareness (& present intervention of awareness is of no Consequence at all as for as the existence of matter is concerned), then the concept called existence is null & void, the Concept called matter is null & void because the concept called existence, the concept called matter are the progenies of awareness.It is clear that physical existence of anything can never depend on observation . @Chandargupta , Was gravitational force working before it was discovered by Newton ?How Big Bang happen when there was no living beingsIts very simple and no need to debate as no one should have doubt about itI am unable to understand what do you think ?
You really need to learn how to think logically.
Your "because" does not follow at all.
You're begging the question again.
What the "null and void" means is that if matter did exist in the absence of awareness there'd be no-one to notice it and THEREFORE you cannot say with certitude that it exists.
You ALSO cannot say with certitude that it doesn't exist.
Ergo: the question and concept is null and void - NOT the physical existence of matter.
Do things exist NOW that we haven't yet thought of?
I.e. things we have no concept of?
If we have no concept of them do they actually exist?
Oh, wait. You're going to claim that there's some "uber-awareness" keeping track, aren't you?
IOW, as I noted in post #2, you're trying to prove god exists.
Yes, you can certainly do that by this chain of (false) logic - but only if you assume a priori that he exists and is necessary.
I.e. it's not a proof it's a circular argument based on assumption.
The concept might be, but the matter isn't.
Are you going to provide ANY support for your opinion, or just a series of assertions?
Just endlessly repeating the same unsubstantiated (and prima facie false) opinion is not an argument.
If number of perceptions are more than the fundamental TRUTHS then awareness does not father existence
Colourless green sheep sleep furiously.
What?
This comes across as a mix of double-talk and unsupported rubbish.
observer or no observer reality exists. we are only here to witness it by the grace of GOD.
How odd... you admit reality exists but then support the claim by using a fantasy. Were you just completely unable to help yourself, there?
Unsupported supposition.
Worthless interjection.
Here you say there is God without observation, than how you know concept of God.
If there is really God about which we talk its meaning human being have observed God and must be proven or should be proven in future.
But actually these are output of human brain.
If human being even able to observe GOD: If yes, then it should be proven or will prove in future.
If human being even never able to observe God: Its meaning no one should know about God and its concepts then if you talk about it, it means its just a output of human brain
I shall reconfigure the original question as follows:- Can there be an 'observed' in the absence of an 'observer'?
By definition - no.
But, then again, that is NOT a reconfiguration of the original question, since the new wording presupposes that reality is an "observed".
I.e. it's dishonest.
Huh? That is a completely different question. You can tell, because it has a completely different answer.
Thank you Strange. This universe is extraordinary.Huh? That is a completely different question. You can tell, because it has a completely different answer.
That's your reply?
57 posts in your thread and the best you can come up with is "The universe is extraordinary"?
I submit that, by definition, it's not even that.
Simply because the universe is what is - i.e. it's an "everyday fact of life".
We make the ordinary extraordinary.
Strange, thanks. The re- configured question :- "Can there be an 'observed' in the absence of an 'observer' " ? requires attention because our universe is so puzzling .
No it doesn't since the question is a tautology.
There is only one possible answer, and it requires neither "attention" nor consideration.
And, as has been pointed out, the question is NOT reconfigured. It's two quite separate questions.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; March 7th, 2013 at 03:54 PM.
This is not a "reconfigured" question.
It does not require any attention; the answer is trivially obvious. Of course there cannot be an observed thing in the absence observer. Any good dictionary will tell you that.
I have no idea why you keep asking these pointless, trivial and meaningless questions. What is your objective with this thread?
Strange. Thanks for your response. Could I ask you : when you say "of course there cannot be an 'observed' in the absence of an 'observer', do you think this answer of your's could help man in solving the puzzle of the universe?
What is "the puzzle of the universe"?
And no. It doesn't help.
Of course not. It is just a matter of the dictionary definitions of the words.
I thank you for your direct response.Of course not. It is just a matter of the dictionary definitions of the words.
Observation can not exist if there is no observer as observation is purely depends on observer.
Its very simple.
Nature is really a puzzle and near impossible to completely solve it but this does not mean we change the meaning of puzzle to solve it easily with a void explanation.
Universe is an ' observed'. Awareness is the 'observer'. Can the 'observed exist in the absence of the 'observer'?
Nonsense. Meaningless gibberish. A pathetic attempt at playing with semantics. Ridiculous sophistry.
The universe has an objective reality whether it is observed or not. (And whether you like it or not.)
If you think otherwise, please provide some evidence not stupid word games.
. Could the moderator please intervene? This is not the kind of language The science Forum should allow.Nonsense. Meaningless gibberish. A pathetic attempt at playing with semantics. Ridiculous sophistry.The universe has an objective reality whether it is observed or not. (And whether you like it or not.)If you think otherwise, please provide some evidence not stupid word games.
@ Chandergupta Do not confuse yourself.
Presence of anything does not need observation.
Everything in Universe that exists is reality will exit whether there is observer or not.
Or if you do not agree ? Make your questions and explanation in more a straight and clear words.
I'm sorry if you don't like the way I characterized your statement. But you appear to be trying to say that because we observe the universe it can only exist because we observe it. Feel free to report my post (see the "report post" link at the bottom?). Could the moderator please intervene? This is not the kind of language The science Forum should allow.Nonsense. Meaningless gibberish. A pathetic attempt at playing with semantics. Ridiculous sophistry.The universe has an objective reality whether it is observed or not. (And whether you like it or not.)If you think otherwise, please provide some evidence not stupid word games.
But I stand by my opinion that all you have is unsubstantiated word-play with no evidence.
If you are going to run away crying if someone points this out, you cannot have much faith in your opinion.
Again: where is the evidence for this assertion?
If you have no evidence or rational argument, then just admit it.
Moderator Comment: Chandra, Strange is objecting to the misuse of language by yourself. While the observation of the universe does involve an observer, it does not follow that the universe does not exist without an observer. Claiming that it is so by twisting words is either ignorant (you are unaware of precisely what you are doing), or dishonest. I believe it is the former.. Could the moderator please intervene? This is not the kind of language The science Forum should allow.Nonsense. Meaningless gibberish. A pathetic attempt at playing with semantics. Ridiculous sophistry.The universe has an objective reality whether it is observed or not. (And whether you like it or not.)If you think otherwise, please provide some evidence not stupid word games.
We are quite happy to tolerate such language abuse if the writer recognises his error when corrected. I hope that will be the case here.
Strange, if you characterise Chandra's underlying theme as nonsense, then you simultaneously do so with the works of many substantial thinkers starting with Bishop Berkley. You may very reasonably disagree with their conclusions, but 'meaningless gibberish' is a step too far.
So, let's try to get more logic into the posts (Chandra) and a shade more objectivity (Strange).
Thank you.
Perhaps theres a third interpretation:
Can there be an object and nothing else besides it ...as its surrounding or its inside?
And here I suggest the answer is no. But how to understand it: "Anything is relative."?
Heres a quote from the thread:
Can there be object in eternal & absolute absence of observer?I still would answer no in my opinion.It's logical. Without anyone to observe, the subject is null.
Yes existing of anything does not depend on observation. Maximum you can say there may be mystery or may not be. This mystery is not GOD, Soul or any other thing witch are products of human brain. If this mystery exist it will be out of science means out of best available knowledge of human beings. Religious things are not out of brain of human beings. These are so simple. Real mystery may be too surprising even no one can imagine. But actually there may not be any mystery and things in space works according to scientific laws. No one knows.
your's is very thoughtful observation. Relationship between object & observer is a conundrum. Any further thought into ' how to open this conundrum a little bit?
The thought that to exist is to be observed is so commonly held that there should be an explanation why somebody believes while others disbelieves without disgracing either part (too much).
Maybe its a question of interpretation. Perhaps the sentence means different things to different ppl? That is how I TRY to see it! And why I began this post with an interpretation: If this interpretation is unconsciously (?) identified with the meaning of the debated sentence then maybe its understandable that Chandra fights so hard for what he sees as the obvious truth.
Preposterous? Maybe not: Write on a paper "This paper is not in the wastebasket" give it to Chandra who says . Yeah! This paper speaks the truth! Then he throws it into the wastebasket. You did only hear this and now you read the paper in the wastebasket and thinks Chandra was wacko in saying that what the paper says is true since it obviously is not!
Last edited by sigurdV; March 9th, 2013 at 10:28 AM.
You are, once again, and despite being informed of this, pre-supposing the answer.
Let's take it from a different viewpoint: WHOSE awareness is the observer?
Do you have evidence that the universe exists without an observer? No, you can't have. Evidence implies that there is an observer. I think the argument is just one of philosophy, probably pointless.
Could you tell me if you are therefore arguing that:
the universe didn't exist before we started to observe it, or
there were aliens doing the observation before we "took over the job", or
"god" was doing the observation?
Which of those do you have evidence for, please.
So is it god or aliens?Evidence implies that there is an observer.
Note that the "aliens" argument reverts back to "who observed it before they arrived?"
I wonder if that had any bearing on this thread being in the philosophy sub-forum. What do you think?I think the argument is just one of philosophy
Like all philosophy, eh?probably pointless.
I think this is creative thinking! An attempt to understand the situation! Is chandra identifying existence with having evidence for existence? (I belong to the camp thinking chandra IS wrong but I will not make fun of him! I actually hate seeing ppl collectively doing so.)Do you have evidence that the universe exists without an observer? No, you can't have. Evidence implies that there is an observer. I think the argument is just one of philosophy, probably pointless.
Yes we have evidence. It is world wide accepted that age of earth is much more than the human being on earth.Do you have evidence that the universe exists without an observer? No, you can't have. Evidence implies that there is an observer. I think the argument is just one of philosophy, probably pointless.
Everything which we can not see physically does not mean we have no eviedence and there is no scientific answer regarding this.
Logical Proof is also acceptable.
Like Size of space is unlimited. It is never possible to travel entire space to prove whether it is unlimited or not.
It is logically proved that space is unlimited until any one logically or physically disapproves it.
I don't have evidence either way.Could you tell me if you are therefore arguing that:
the universe didn't exist before we started to observe it, or
there were aliens doing the observation before we "took over the job", or
"god" was doing the observation?
Which of those do you have evidence for, please.
Yep.
So is it god or aliens?Evidence implies that there is an observer.
Note that the "aliens" argument reverts back to "who observed it before they arrived?"
I wonder if that had any bearing on this thread being in the philosophy sub-forum. What do you think?I think the argument is just one of philosophy
Like all philosophy, eh?probably pointless.
Worldwide acceptance is not evidence.
So the universe didn't exist before we arrived?
Or god is watching?
Or do you simply not understand reductio ad absurdum?
Then stay out out of it.Yep.
I assume Raj actually meant "worldwide acceptance of the scientific evidence" - or do you dispute THAT evidence?Worldwide acceptance is not evidence.
I think friendly interpretation of participators posts are so rare in here that they should be encouraged! Thank you!I assume Raj actually meant "worldwide acceptance of the scientific evidence" - or do you dispute THAT evidence?
I suspect Raj is using a translator ...and we know how good they are ... and even if he is not, it is easy to see that his grip on english is not all it should be. So some friendly treatment I think is appropriate in his case.
On the other hand: Harold is not in the wrong in pointing out that opinion is not evidence (although as foreigner I will never feel comfortable with the english interpretation of "evidence")... its just his manners and empathy that could be improved upon.
I don't know about the universe before we arrived, and neither do you. No one mentioned God. Why do you bring that up? I don't care what you think is absurd. I made a perfectly logical statement. All evidence is observed by an observer. Without an observer there is no evidence. Do you disagree with that?So the universe didn't exist before we arrived?
Or god is watching?
Or do you simply not understand reductio ad absurdum?
No, you stay out of it.Then stay out out of it.Yep.
Scientific evidence is fine. It is based on observations by observers.I assume Raj actually meant "worldwide acceptance of the scientific evidence" - or do you dispute THAT evidence?Worldwide acceptance is not evidence.
How about "established beyond any reasonable doubt"? Or do you in fact dispute the scientific evidence?
It's quite simple: using the argument as posed - in order for the universe to come into being there must have been an observer from the very start - is that not one of the attributes of god?No one mentioned God. Why do you bring that up?
Which isn't what is under dispute here. Do try to keep up.All evidence is observed by an observer. Without an observer there is no evidence. Do you disagree with that?
I'm not the one dismissing it as "probably pointless".No, you stay out of it.
Again, not the point.Scientific evidence is fine. It is based on observations by observers.
70;401109]I don't know about the universe before we arrived, and neither do you. No one mentioned God. Why do you bring that up? I don't care what you think is absurd. I made a perfectly logical statement. All evidence is observed by an observer. Without an observer there is no evidence. Do you disagree with that?So the universe didn't exist before we arrived?
Or god is watching?
Or do you simply not understand reductio ad absurdum?
No, you stay out of it.Then stay out out of it.Yep.
Scientific evidence is fine. It is based on observations by observers.[/QUOTE]I assume Raj actually meant "worldwide acceptance of the scientific evidence" - or do you dispute THAT evidence?Worldwide acceptance is not evidence.
@Harold Observing or Proving anything in science does not mean we "Create" it.
Possibly there would be a day when first person observed moon, It does not mean moon 's age started from that day.
Even proving or observing in science this not means it. Observing or Proving is just like "confirmation" .
Although there are two types of proving -1.Physical Proving -Like Gravity
2. Logical Proving- Space is unlimited
Both can be changed if any one proves it opposite.
I believe that "established beyond any reasonable doubt" is a legal standard of proof in a criminal case. Not sure what it has to do with what we are discussing. I do not dispute scientific evidence. However in a hypothetical universe without an observer, there wouldn't be any scientific evidence.How about "established beyond any reasonable doubt"? Or do you in fact dispute the scientific evidence?
It may not be your point, but it's my point.Again, not the point.Scientific evidence is fine. It is based on observations by observers.
It doesn't mean it didn't, either.
There is no such thing as proof in science. How are you so sure of yourself?Even proving or observing in science this not means it. Observing or Proving is just like "confirmation" .
Although there are two types of proving -1.Physical Proving -Like Gravity
2. Logical Proving- Space is unlimited
Both can be changed if any one proves it opposite.
@HAROLD
Go to meanings and not just game of confusing words
1. Do you believe things which are observed by human being exits before first observation or means to say like Sun exits before first observation. Give answer only in Yes or No
2. If we are unable to observe any thing due to " physical limitation" problem, it can not exit. Means to say only things which we observed exit. Give answer in Yes or No.
3. Are you going to reach the conclusion to an ultimate observer who can observe all things. It will lead to conciseness and sense of "nature" which today is believed to be dead . According to science nature is dead and have no thinking, sense or consciousness. This will lead to concept of God. Do you agree with conciseness and thinking power of nature or another body outside of current biology ? Yes or No
I find your statement surprising! Will you please elaborate? Thank you.
@SigurdV- its just loosely expressed statement with proper meanings that
" In science when the existing of any law or a physical object is proved this does not give meaning we created the proved object or law i.e. means to say existing of proved object does not depend on proving .
alternate question...
Can there be an observer in the absence of reality?.....
Existence of observer itself would be proof of Reality.
and without reality, the observer cannot exist. so the absence of the observer could be evidence of the absence of reality. But we are all observers therefore reality must exist.
Without Reality Observer can not exist.
But without observer Reality can exist.
All that science can do is demonstrate that a particular set of results may be expected as a consequence of a particular set of conditions. This is often expressed mathematically with great precision. However, it is accepted that this is based upon the study of a vanishingly small set of instances and so at any time an observation could be made that overturns the existing paradigm or hypothesis. You can thus disprove a theory in science, but never exhaustively prove it.I find your statement surprising! Will you please elaborate? Thank you.
In practical terms we take certain theories to be so well tested that we accept that they are proven, but there is always a caveat.
Yes, that would seem to make the most sense. But what I believe doesn't really matter.
I don't understand questions 2 and 3. I draw no conclusions about the existence of God.
2. If we are unable to observe any thing due to " physical limitation" problem, it can not exit. Means to say only things which we observed exit. Give answer in Yes or No.
3. Are you going to reach the conclusion to an ultimate observer who can observe all things. It will lead to conciseness and sense of "nature" which today is believed to be dead . According to science nature is dead and have no thinking, sense or consciousness. This will lead to concept of God. Do you agree with conciseness and thinking power of nature or another body outside of current biology ? Yes or No
Now you got it.
A person in a coma is unable to observe the reality around them, but they are still affected by reality, even if they are unaware of it.
I had a seizure during which time, I was unable to observe reality and was totally unaware of reality. I was not even self aware during the seizure, so during that time, it seemed to me that nothing existed, including time. Upon my recovery I discovered that everything continued to exist during the seizure including hte passage of time. and the affects of reality were present in the form of bruises on my from me hitting my head during the seizure itself.
Ok! Good! You are sane and on safe ground. Its the problem with induction you are referring to, and you seem to be aware of Poppers Explanation. Still Id like to read how it is proven that a disproof of someting is valid? Must not the disproof be repeated forever in case it will fail next time?All that science can do is demonstrate that a particular set of results may be expected as a consequence of a particular set of conditions. This is often expressed mathematically with great precision. However, it is accepted that this is based upon the study of a vanishingly small set of instances and so at any time an observation could be made that overturns the existing paradigm or hypothesis. You can thus disprove a theory in science, but never exhaustively prove it.I find your statement surprising! Will you please elaborate? Thank you.
In practical terms we take certain theories to be so well tested that we accept that they are proven, but there is always a caveat.
(Perhaps my question is near to your statement that there is no proof in science? But one cant prove that there is no proof in science... or can you?)
A single "misproof" can be sufficient (depending on the original claim).
All swans are white, for example, is disproven when a single black swan in found.
For more esoteric things, particle physics etc, the "disproof" should be checked to confirm that it's not simply an error in measurement or something similar.
They only way to have "proof" is to know for a fact that there is nothing whatsoever that would ever contradict that "proof". And, without knowing absolutely everything, including the future, this isn't possible.But one cant prove that there is no proof in science... or can you?
Last edited by Dywyddyr; March 10th, 2013 at 09:27 PM.
| « I found an urgent need to express the following, to wordy for Profile: Like to see posted to home page AS a Forum POPIC | How Long Would It Be Necessary... » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
