[Grey Wolf]

Rather interesting article. May or may not be true, but if nothing else, it serves one purpose. It causes you to think.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: they hypothesised the Higgs Boson based upon the logical need need for it in light of other known particles -  guess what - last spring the detected the Higgs Boson -- and confirmed their results

That's slightly incorrect - they detected evidence of it ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3546973.stm ) -  but at the very edge of the LEPs range.

It's controversial. The data is possibly indicative, but it needs confirmation," said Bryan Webber, professor of theoretical physics at the University of Cambridge.

"Its mass is right at the maximum energy they could run the [LEP] at. But the indirect indications are that the Higgs boson should be close to that value."

So it's not conclusively found - yet.  Point being, when it was postulated there was no way of nothing if it was right.  The standard model - in terms of mass - was defined by something which was unproven.  Likely, yes (it would have to be) - but unproven.

EDIT; also http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995095 , which I just found.  NB: I'm not saying for a second that I don;t believe the Higgs Boson exists or anything - I'm not qualified to - just that we didn't know when the Standard Model was conceived.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Kazan
Tiara: perhaps to _you_ but i am adhering strictly to the rules of logic (ie what we've been working on the refinement of for 1000+ years and have a very stable self-evident ruleset now)

if you have been trained in Logic (capital L should noted) then rationality and irrationality are _NOT_ subjective - neither should they EVER be

once again this is a matter of people's personal opinion being trumped by facts

No, it's a fact that when people's opinions differ on a subject that it is indeed subjective. ANd my opinion differs on the subject therefor its PER DEFINITION subjective.

Even your so precious logic is subjective. That logic is not the same as everyone else's. Just because you're the one that learned it this way doesn't mean everyone else has to embrace it as well.

Logic is a POV, a stance you take. From that stance it's easier to see the facts buit not everything can be defined in facts.

Actually, everything is subjective besides stuff like 1+1=2 and proven things. Logic has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A few hundred years ago logic was very different from the logic we use today. Perhaps in a few centuries the logic that you use today will be so outdated people would laugh at you if you used it.

I agree that your Logic is a great asset to assertaining facts, but it's not in the farthest reaches absolute.

Seriously, you need to learn to see the other side of things. you cannot make a clear judgement when you only see your side of the story.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Tiara
Actually, everything is subjective besides stuff like 1+1=2 and proven things.

1+1=2, except for certain values of 2...

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Ace


1+1=2, except for certain values of 2...

Heh, even the value of 2 is subjective

[Nico]

I read somewhere that if you put the masses of two blackholes together, the result would be smaller than a simple addition and conclusion was that in that case 1+1<2

[vyper]

Only if you are making these calculations based on reality close to a singularity or two, which doesn't happen on earth very often

[Tiara]

This just goes to prove that everything is subjective. Even logic.

though i doubt much logic would survive two black holes...

[Nico]

Well, my logic is kind of a black hole too

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Tiara
This just goes to prove that everything is subjective. Even logic.

though i doubt much logic would survive two black holes...

I'd say it's more from where you start from.  Truth will always be truth. Truth is exclusive. Truth cannot be false. However what we think truth is may be false. But again, it doesn't mean it's true.

Now I'm not the best thinker, but I'd like to think I can think through stuff logically. Now Kazan and I start from different points. I start by saying there is a God, Kazan says there isn't. Since we cannot 'prove' that God exists or not, both these assumtions are faith. Now Kazan may be thinking I'm one of those 6 day creationist. I can assure I am not. I don't know what to think on the subject other then God created it all. People who think that a long creation time (more then 6 days) is contrary to an all-powerful God are nuts. 6 days is to long for an all-powerful God. Hell, 6 seconds is to long!

If all the exsits is the material world then it must be infinite. Don't say 'but what about the Big Bang?' What about it? Where did the material for what made up the thing that banged come from?

Now about infinite. Let's take two sets of numbers. Set A will have all odd and even numbers. Set B will have only odd numbers. Now both are infinite, however logic would say that Set A would be twice as large as Set B. But as stated both sets go off into the infinite! This example is to show that the infinite can only exist in our heads, and to go a step farther, the super-natural. Because if the world (anything material) is finite, it had to have had a beginning. And if it had a beggining, it had to have had a creator that is infinite (a being that has no first cause, always existed).

[Flipside]

Kaz : To exclude anything because it doesn't fit in with how you think the universe should work is no better in science than it is in religion

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Flipside
To exclude anything because it doesn't fit in with how you think the universe should work is no better in science than it is in religion

Dude, what the hell did I just finish writing about truth? Truth is objective. If truth is subjective, the truth that truth is subjective is subjective.

[Flipside]

And was I talking to you? Since you are talking about religion, and I mentioned science I thought would be obvious this was for Kazan, but I'll put a little note at the top of my post

Oh, and lighten up

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Flipside
And was I talking to you? Since you are talking about religion, and I mentioned science I thought would be obvious this was for Kazan, but I'll put a little note at the top of my post

Oh, and lighten up

I see, sorry about that.

[Flipside]

No problemo

[Kazan]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Now Kazan and I start from different points. I start by saying there is a God, Kazan says there isn't. Since we cannot 'prove' that God exists or not, both these assumtions are faith.

Incorrect on two counts - I start from _no_ position and look at the data available -- No evidence for existance of diety, no logical need for deity to exist leads me to logically not belief

Lack of belief is not faith - because faith is belief without evidence.

You cannot have faith if you have no belief.

Your error is your _start_ from a position

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
Now Kazan may be thinking I'm one of those 6 day creationist. I can assure I am not. I don't know what to think on the subject other then God created it all. People who think that a long creation time (more then 6 days) is contrary to an all-powerful God are nuts. 6 days is to long for an all-powerful God. Hell, 6 seconds is to long!

you theists can fight amongst yourself over that

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
If all the exsits is the material world then it must be infinite. Don't say 'but what about the Big Bang?' What about it? Where did the material for what made up the thing that banged come from?

the material world could be finite, but all the matter in it concentrated into a single glob at point some

Originally aposted by HotSnoJ
Now about infinite. Let's take two sets of numbers. Set A will have all odd and even numbers. Set B will have only odd numbers. Now both are infinite, however logic would say that Set A would be twice as large as Set B. But as stated both sets go off into the infinite! This example is to show that the infinite can only exist in our heads, and to go a step farther, the super-natural. Because if the world (anything material) is finite, it had to have had a beginning. And if it had a beggining, it had to have had a creator that is infinite (a being that has no first cause, always existed).

non sequitur - "infinite" is an arbitrarily large number, not a thing

supernatural is a thing

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Flipside
Kaz : To exclude anything because it doesn't fit in with how you think the universe should work is no better in science than it is in religion

It has no evidence, it has no logical need -- from the universe we've observed - and we've observed it pretty darn well thus far


No Evidence, No Logical Support means No Belief

[Rictor]

According to your logic, it is stupid to believe that there are other lifeforms in the Universe except us. We have seen no evidence whatsoever to indicate that any other form of life exists. A lack of evidence can mean one of three things.

1. There is no evidence because we have not yet found it.
2. The evidence is there, but we cannot recognize it for what it is, due to the limitations and faults of our scientific theories.
3. There is no evidence because the theory is false.

Until somehting has been disproven, it must at the very least be regarded as possible.

[Kazan]

wrong Rictor -- there is solid logic supporting the the probability of the existance of other lifeforms in the universe based upon known phenomena


there is a difference between "Regarding as possible" and being rational to believe

[Tiara]

I'm not even gonna bother. Kazan, I'm not meaning to insult you by saying this but you are the science fundy as a counterpart to a Religious fundy. You refuse to open your mind to other possibilities.

And i hate both with all my heart.