No.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 9:14 amIs a theory something only a scientists guy might have?
ANyone can make a theory. Even Bahman. Might be like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs
Why do you ask?
No.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 9:14 amIs a theory something only a scientists guy might have?
Quantitative.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 10:19 amIs the theory that earth circles around the sun a qualitative or a quantitative theory?bahman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 12:29 pmBy theory, I mean something that can tell you the quantitative features of a system. What you are talking about is qualitative.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2023 12:21 pm Bats have telepatic communication with seagulls
Whats perfect or imperfect about that theory? As a theory?
Both theories have a pretty similar yes/no proposition. What makes planets turning around stars more quantitative? If bats can telepatically communicate with seagulls, you probably can figure out with as may details about that as with planet orbits and the similar.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 1:05 pmQuantitative.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 10:19 amIs the theory that earth circles around the sun a qualitative or a quantitative theory?
Because only science guys probably cares about experimental results. At least experimental results with a capital E and R.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 11:06 amNo.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 9:14 amIs a theory something only a scientists guy might have?
ANyone can make a theory. Even Bahman. Might be like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs
Why do you ask?
Are you defining "science guys" by their insitstence on experiemental results?Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 1:27 pmBecause only science guys probably cares about experimental results. At least experimental results with a capital E and R.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 11:06 amNo.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 9:14 am
Is a theory something only a scientists guy might have?
ANyone can make a theory. Even Bahman. Might be like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs
Why do you ask?
Sorry, I should said qualitative. The theory which deals with the exact position of Earth is quantitative.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 1:25 pmBoth theories have a pretty similar yes/no proposition. What makes planets turning around stars more quantitative? If bats can telepatically communicate with seagulls, you probably can figure out with as may details about that as with planet orbits and the similar.bahman wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 1:05 pmQuantitative.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 10:19 am
Is the theory that earth circles around the sun a qualitative or a quantitative theory?
That does not follow. The fact that our measurement is not perfect does not mean that God is not real.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 5:37 am We know that physical measurements are not perfect in the sense that they are not precise to the last digit. Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement.
Therefore a God is supposedly must be Perfect, i.e. omni-whatever cannot exists as real to be verified by physical measurements.
Whatever is real, factual, true, knowledge, objective must be conditioned upon a specific human based Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 5:31 pmThat does not follow. The fact that our measurement is not perfect does not mean that God is not real.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 5:37 am We know that physical measurements are not perfect in the sense that they are not precise to the last digit. Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement.
Therefore a God is supposedly must be Perfect, i.e. omni-whatever cannot exists as real to be verified by physical measurements.
What you are saying simply does not follow. Could we please stay on the topic of this thread?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 25, 2023 4:42 amWhatever is real, factual, true, knowledge, objective must be conditioned upon a specific human based Framework and System of Realization [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 5:31 pmThat does not follow. The fact that our measurement is not perfect does not mean that God is not real.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Dec 24, 2023 5:37 am We know that physical measurements are not perfect in the sense that they are not precise to the last digit. Therefore, one cannot construct a perfect theory from such a measurement.
Therefore a God is supposedly must be Perfect, i.e. omni-whatever cannot exists as real to be verified by physical measurements.
What is most real [at present] is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.
The grounding of scientific reality is the verification and justification via "physical measurements" of empirical evidence supported by rationality.
There is no other FSK that is more realistic than the scientific FSK, if you claim otherwise, which FSK?
Surely, God cannot be real within the scientific FSK? i.e. God cannot be a scientific fact or reality.
1. Physical measurements are not perfect.
2. Science as the most realistic rely on physical measurement [+ rationality].
3. God must exists as an absolute perfect being.
4. Therefore, God cannot be most realistic.
Nah rather defining the non science guys that do accept other input as wellSculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 2:46 pmAre you defining "science guys" by their insitstence on experiemental results?Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 1:27 pmBecause only science guys probably cares about experimental results. At least experimental results with a capital E and R.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 11:06 am
No.
ANyone can make a theory. Even Bahman. Might be like this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs
Why do you ask?
You mean like scientists.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 10:31 amNah rather defining the non science guys that do accept other input as wellSculptor wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 2:46 pmAre you defining "science guys" by their insitstence on experiemental results?Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 1:27 pm
Because only science guys probably cares about experimental results. At least experimental results with a capital E and R.
That is not true.Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 12:59 pm... Rarely does science emerge from an experiement.Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 10:31 amNah rather defining the non science guys that do accept other input as well
I'll go further..