Why Christianity May Be the Most Logical Religion.

[uwot]

It really is terribly simple: gravity is a measurable force.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is.

It's a Mathematical constant. It's axiomatically defined.

It's the G in F = ( G * m1 * m1 ) / r^2, and the G in Einstein's field equations.

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

The Gravitational constant isn't gravity. Here, another wiki page for ya: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

If we "suddenly drifted into space" (but our bodies remained put together to observe it) that would be some crazy shit!!!

What role do you think gravity plays in keeping our bodies together?

Our experience of things moving/falling is constant

Yeah, that's because forces, for example gravity, act on them.

- only our theories describing the phenomena change.

Yes indeed. Did I mention the article I wrote that explains that? https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia

If we came up with a better mathematical description, a theory of quantum gravity that describes all the phenomena we observe (motion, things falling, things attracting each other), and that theory does not depend on the gravitational constant G, then Gravity is falsified.

And then we'll all drift off into space.

[Skepdick]

Our experience of things moving/falling is constant

Yeah, that's because forces, for example gravity, act on them.

Everything after the "because" is a theoretical e.g linguistic/descriptive. ergo falsifiable.

And then we'll all drift off into space.

That is an unobservable event. Ergo. it's a falsification criterion that can never be satisfied. It's faux-falsification - a sacred cow.

It's not even wrong, so the rest of your comment is immaterial.

[uwot]

Our experience of things moving/falling is constant

Yeah, that's because forces, for example gravity, act on them.

Everything after the "because" is a theoretical e.g linguistic/descriptive. ergo falsifiable.

This is the bit you kinda get, but you keep dropping it. It is the models we use to account for the force of gravity, Einstein's malleable 'spacetime' for example, that are linguistic/descriptive. Gravity is the F in equations, not G, that's why they're on opposite sides of =.

And then we'll all drift off into space.

That is an unobservable event.

No. It just hasn't been observed.

Ergo. it's a falsification criterion that can never be satisfied. It's faux-falsification - a sacred cow.

It's not even wrong, so the rest of your comment is immaterial.

Well, you're the one who said:

Falsification is descriptive, not empirical.

[Skepdick]

No. It just hasn't been observed.

It hasn't been observed and it can never be observed. Not even in principle.

Who would observe themselves drifting into space without also observing themselves ceasing to exist?

Who would come to report of such event?

Well, you're the one who said:

Falsification is descriptive, not empirical.

Indeed. New model, one that doesn't include the G constant and its constituents while it demonstrates equivalent or better predictive/explanatory power is sufficient for falsification.

And then you can go and say "Well yeah! THAT is Gravity" (because ANYTHING that explains the phenomena is Gravity to you).

God of the gaps.

[uwot]

No. It just hasn't been observed.

It hasn't been observed and it can never be observed. Not even in principle.

Who would observe themselves drifting into space without also observing themselves ceasing to exist?

Who would come to report of such event?

Someone with the foresight to put on a spacesuit.

New model (one that doesn't include the G constant and its constituents) is sufficient for falsification.

But it wouldn't falsify F.

[Skepdick]

Someone with the foresight to put on a spacesuit.

And what kind if "suit" would they have to put on in order to stop their internal clocks from ceasing to function?

But it wouldn't falsify F.

You declare it proudly. As if that's a good thing...

God of the Gaps....

[uwot]

And then you can go and say "Well yeah! THAT is Gravity" (because ANYTHING that explains the phenomena is Gravity to you).

God of the gaps.

Ah, another edit. Why do you insist on capitalising gravity? You only have to do that for things like Yahweh or Zeus; you know, gods.

[Skepdick]

Ah, another edit. Why do you insist on capitalising gravity? You only have to do that for things like Yahweh or Zeus; you know, gods.

Because it is your God.

You keep saying nothing can falsify it. The falsification criteria you keep giving me are not observable even in principle.

Intentionally or unintentionally you are defending your religion.

[uwot]

Someone with the foresight to put on a spacesuit.

And what kind if "suit" would they have to put on in order to stop their internal clocks from ceasing to function?

Ah, another post. Clocks, internal or otherwise, do not rely on gravity to work and would not stop.

But it wouldn't falsify F.

You declare it proudly. As if that's a good thing...

God of the Gaps....

No, I'm just declaring it as a matter of fact.

[Skepdick]

Ah, another post. Clocks, internal or otherwise, do not rely on gravity to work and would not stop.

They do. That's what time dilation is all about.

No, I'm just declaring it as a matter of fact.

The "falsifiability" criterion for gravity you propose is not observable.

Neither in practice nor in principle.

[uwot]

Ah, another edit. Why do you insist on capitalising gravity? You only have to do that for things like Yahweh or Zeus; you know, gods.

Because it is your God.

You keep saying nothing can falsify it. The falsification criteria you keep giving me are not observable even in principle.

It's the problem of induction. We assume the future will be like the past, but we can't be sure. As it happens there are theories, generally under the umbrella of 'The Great Rip' that predict that the expansion of the universe will become so great, perhaps due to dark energy, that gravity will flip and tear everything apart.

Intentionally or unintentionally you are defending your religion.

Don't be silly.

[Skepdick]

It's the problem of induction. We assume the future will be like the past, but we can't be sure. As it happens there are theories, generally under the umbrella of 'The Great Rip' that predict that the expansion of the universe will become so great, perhaps due to dark energy, that gravity will flip and tear everything apart.

Yes. Theories theories theories - plenty of them.

Do you have a theory/model of existence in which gravity doesn't feature?
e.g there's an alternative explanation for motion/attraction etc (all the things you claim gravity explains).

If you can't answer "yes" - gravity is unfalsifiable to you.

Don't be silly.

I am just drawing parallels.

[uwot]

Ah, another post. Clocks, internal or otherwise, do not rely on gravity to work and would not stop.

They do. That's what time dilation is all about.

Ah, you've changed your mind again. Yes, gravity demonstrably affects how clocks work. Good to see you finally accept gravity, Hallelujah brother! But they don't simply stop because there's no gravity.

No, I'm just declaring it as a matter of fact.

The "falsifiability" criterion for gravity you propose is not observable.

Neither in practice nor in principle.

So falsification is empirical rather than descriptive; contradicting what you said before:

Falsification is descriptive, not empirical.

Praise the lord!

[uwot]

It's the problem of induction. We assume the future will be like the past, but we can't be sure. As it happens there are theories, generally under the umbrella of 'The Great Rip' that predict that the expansion of the universe will become so great, perhaps due to dark energy, that gravity will flip and tear everything apart.

Yes. Theories theories theories - plenty of them.

Do you have a theory/model of existence in which gravity doesn't feature?

You mean apart from the "plenty of them" mentioned above?

[Skepdick]

Ah, you've changed your mind again.

Obviously that is how you see it. I keep switching between the GR and QFT perspectives so I can talk to you in a language you understand.

Yes, gravity demonstrably affects how clocks work.

Not at quantum scale.

Good to see you finally accept gravity, Hallelujah brother! But they don't simply stop because there's no gravity.

They do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

So falsification is empirical rather than descriptive; contradicting what you said before

Contradictions don't exist. If you are detecting one, that's signals an explanatory failure on your behalf.

What you are "detecting" as a contradiction is me switching between the GR and QFT perspectives.

incommensurability and all that.