ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ndes , obes

Reply
Old 7th August 2015, 08:58 PM   #321
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,494
Originally Posted by Innocuous View Post
Pi is greater than 3 but less than 4. In what way is it infinite?
You never get to 4.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2015, 09:02 PM   #322
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,494
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
This betrays a deep ignorance of what science, existence and logic are.
Not really, it just doesn't coincide with your faith that science has all of the answers, and what answers science doesn't have, it simply means the question wasn't worth asking.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2015, 12:16 AM   #323
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,262
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
If you divide 10 people into 3 groups you will have 3 and 1/3 people in each group.
1/3 of a person? That's just silly.

If you have a pie of 100cc in volume and divide it equally into three.
Quote:
Numbers are symbols for quantities, quantities are finite.
You now have 3 finite quantities of pie, each of 33.333...cc in volume.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th August 2015, 12:29 AM   #324
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,263
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Not really, it just doesn't coincide with your faith that science has all of the answers, and what answers science doesn't have, it simply means the question wasn't worth asking.
What fun you have among the sceptics. A lark. A romp. Fields of daisies. La la lee.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2015, 09:19 PM   #325
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,494
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
1/3 of a person? That's just silly.

If you have a pie of 100cc in volume and divide it equally into three.
You now have 3 finite quantities of pie, each of 33.333...cc in volume.
Sure it is, but that's what some some functions of mathematical equations represent.

The sum of the parts of the pie are nicely represented by a whole number, divide the pie, and the sections are represented as infinite according to the math. The math doesn't adequately represent reality in all cases.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2015, 10:40 PM   #326
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,360
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
The sum of the parts of the pie are nicely represented by a whole number, divide the pie, and the sections are represented as infinite according to the math.



Divide something of finite size into sections, and those sections will be of finite size. "According to the math."
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2015, 11:01 PM   #327
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,104
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
You never get to 4.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 12:49 AM   #328
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,360
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
You never get to 4.

Perhaps some legislation could be introduced to make sure you do.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 01:57 AM   #329
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,018
A derail of epic proportions, but the crowd is going wild. This is like watching a streaker run onto the field during a football match, except twice as embarrassing...
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 06:55 AM   #330
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,494
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post


Divide something of finite size into sections, and those sections will be of finite size. "According to the math."
No, if you divide the number 1 or 10 into thirds you get 0.33333... or 3.3333333.... which is infinite. If you divide any object into 3 parts they are finite sections. The reality doesn't match the math.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 07:04 AM   #331
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,494
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
A derail of epic proportions, but the crowd is going wild. This is like watching a streaker run onto the field during a football match, except twice as embarrassing...
Not really, it's right on target with the topic. Mathematical principles are used to demonstrate reality. These simple problems of division, 1/3 and pi, show the limitations of using math to explain very fundamental observations.

My conclusion based on the above is that our perception of reality is finite whereas the math, in some instances, states otherwise. To assume there is nothing past what we can measure or observe is a type of bias.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 07:26 AM   #332
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,263
Jodie, modulo. Modulo, Jodie. Only atoms remain.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 07:35 AM   #333
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,360
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
No, if you divide the number 1 or 10 into thirds you get 0.33333... or 3.3333333.... which is infinite.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

If 1/3 is infinite, then either 1 is equal to infinity or 3 is equal to zero. Neither of these is true.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 07:56 AM   #334
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,360
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Not really, it's right on target with the topic. Mathematical principles are used to demonstrate reality. These simple problems of division, 1/3 and pi, show the limitations of using math to explain very fundamental observations.

No, they just illustrate a shortcoming of a particular form of mathematical notation. Irrational numbers can't be written down using numerals, but they can be precisely defined using other forms of notation such as geometry. If they couldn't be defined precisely we could not know that they are irrational.

And numbers like 1/3 can be expressed perfectly using numerals, for example as I've just done in this sentence.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 08:05 AM   #335
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,494
That is the failure of the mathematical formula in representing what we see in reality. You can cherry pick the situations where mathematics can be used to explain the universe but that creates a bias when you ignore all of the instances where math fails to represent what we see in nature. The language of mathematics has it's limitations in representing concepts of reality therefore using science, which is based on the language of mathematics, as "proof" to state there is no life after death is a failure in logic IMO.

Last edited by Jodie; 15th August 2015 at 08:09 AM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 08:11 AM   #336
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 12,406
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
No, if you divide the number 1 or 10 into thirds you get 0.33333... or 3.3333333.... which is infinite. If you divide any object into 3 parts they are finite sections. The reality doesn't match the math.
I find it odd that you believe that the existence of infinite rational or irrational numbers somehow invalidate math as a description of reality. Measure the length of the pencil on you desk with a very precise ruler- it is almost certainly not a whole number. Almost surely it will be an infinite series of numbers: 6.01498255.. long, in cm (an arbitrarily chosen unit). It would be a different set of numbers in inches. So what? Why must physical things work out to a perfect length of any arbitrarily chosen units for math to be useful? I can still tell you the length, using math, of two of those pencils placed end to end. Measure 100 pencils and I could use math to calculate the mean length and standard deviation.

"Perfection" is a concept of religion, not physics. If you wish your pencil to be a "perfect" whole number length, then define a new length in math called "Jodie's pencil." Then your pencil will be exactly 1 unit long. The math would be the same as the math we now use, just employing your new unit. If you want pi to be a rationale number, just define it to be the new unit, pi. Oh, we already have a symbol for that new unit, don't we?
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 08:12 AM   #337
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,263
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
That is the failure of the mathematical formula in representing what we see in reality. You can cherry pick the situations where mathematics can be used to explain the universe but that creates a bias when you ignore all of the instances where math fails to represent what we see in nature. The language of mathematics has it's limitations in representing concepts of reality therefore using science as "proof" to state there is no life after death is a failure in logic IMO.
Words.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 08:19 AM   #338
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,263
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
… then define a new length in math called "Jodie's pencil."
This is one Ṫrollström. It is the unit of least concern. One expresses it by way of numbers of fornications given.
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 08:20 AM   #339
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,360
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
That is the failure of the mathematical formula in representing what we see in reality. You can cherry pick the situations where mathematics can be used to explain the universe but that creates a bias when you ignore all of the instances where math fails to represent what we see in nature.

You have not presented any "instances where math fails to represent what we see in nature".
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 09:24 AM   #340
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,104
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
No, if you divide the number 1 or 10 into thirds you get 0.33333... or 3.3333333.... which is infinite.
No. The notation takes the form of an infinite series of digits if you choose to represent it that way. The quantity represented by those digits is finite. There is no contradiction.

Even then, you can quite easily represent the quantity without a repeating series of digits, like so: 1/3.

You do not understand math.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 09:47 AM   #341
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,039
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
That is the failure of the mathematical formula in representing what we see in reality. You can cherry pick the situations where mathematics can be used to explain the universe but that creates a bias when you ignore all of the instances where math fails to represent what we see in nature. The language of mathematics has it's limitations in representing concepts of reality therefore using science, which is based on the language of mathematics, as "proof" to state there is no life after death is a failure in logic IMO.
Hilite by Daylightstar

Can you give some clear examples of that?
Can you give some clear examples of how such claimed failure supports the claimed existence of something we do not see in nature?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 12:27 PM   #342
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,494
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I find it odd that you believe that the existence of infinite rational or irrational numbers somehow invalidate math as a description of reality. Measure the length of the pencil on you desk with a very precise ruler- it is almost certainly not a whole number. Almost surely it will be an infinite series of numbers: 6.01498255.. long, in cm (an arbitrarily chosen unit). It would be a different set of numbers in inches. So what? Why must physical things work out to a perfect length of any arbitrarily chosen units for math to be useful? I can still tell you the length, using math, of two of those pencils placed end to end. Measure 100 pencils and I could use math to calculate the mean length and standard deviation.

"Perfection" is a concept of religion, not physics. If you wish your pencil to be a "perfect" whole number length, then define a new length in math called "Jodie's pencil." Then your pencil will be exactly 1 unit long. The math would be the same as the math we now use, just employing your new unit. If you want pi to be a rationale number, just define it to be the new unit, pi. Oh, we already have a symbol for that new unit, don't we?
If you are arguing that math is imperfect, then the math underlying the science involved when near death experiences happen is inadequate. How do you determine that the near death experience is simply a physiological response and indicative of nothing more from that?
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 12:43 PM   #343
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,494
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
Hilite by Daylightstar

Can you give some clear examples of that?
Can you give some clear examples of how such claimed failure supports the claimed existence of something we do not see in nature?
Weather prediction.
Wave/particle theory.
"It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do". Einstein

Mathematics is an incomplete language, it only reflects what we know, and maybe somethings yet to be discovered. I can't assume reality ends when I die because science says it does.

Last edited by Jodie; 15th August 2015 at 01:00 PM.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 12:56 PM   #344
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,039
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Weather prediction.
Wave/particle theory.
"It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do". Einstein

Mathematics is an incomplete language, it only reflects what we know, and maybe somethings yet to be discovered. I can't assume reality ends when I die because science says so.
And the second one?
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
...
Can you give some clear examples of how such claimed failure supports the claimed existence of something we do not see in nature?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 01:11 PM   #345
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,494
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
And the second one?
We don't see light as either particles or waves, it takes two very recent theories considering how long mankind has been around, to explain it. Also, we only see a very small spectrum of that light. Light that is out of our visual spectrum usually behaves as either a particle at lower frequencies or waves at higher frequencies so you have to choose which mathematical theory to apply to the situation. That doesn't reflect what see or don't see as our reality, it only reflects potential.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 01:15 PM   #346
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
That is the failure of the mathematical formula in representing what we see in reality. You can cherry pick the situations where mathematics can be used to explain the universe but that creates a bias when you ignore all of the instances where math fails to represent what we see in nature. The language of mathematics has it's limitations in representing concepts of reality therefore using science, which is based on the language of mathematics, as "proof" to state there is no life after death is a failure in logic IMO.
What is it that is alive after death? Your body is dead so what's left?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 02:14 PM   #347
Donn
Philosopher
 
Donn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,263
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
We don't see light as either particles or waves, it takes two very recent theories considering how long mankind has been around, to explain it. Also, we only see a very small spectrum of that light. Light that is out of our visual spectrum usually behaves as either a particle at lower frequencies or waves at higher frequencies so you have to choose which mathematical theory to apply to the situation. That doesn't reflect what see or don't see as our reality, it only reflects potential.
Your words drip wisdom like a Komodo's lips; so tangible is your cutting insight. We cannot see because our math does not divide — all is potential. The death waves sparkle about the algebraic infidelity of our corpses, a spark cloud of particles hypothetical at best.

Who are we, pale humans, to question the unplumbed depths of this arduous spectrum that humans claim? How convenient that we invent that which we define to invent! All the while we deal death a false hand, leaving its prophets to wail without voice — for sound cannot carry across mere definition.

We cruelly stub these vast ideas with our materials; leaving sharp science lying about on the landscape, tines-up.

To see the graves in their trillions from this new perspective, this potential, is a light bulb of the brightest lead. It erupts across the death-sphere, a fire of rumour: we might live after death! The body is not the self! The tangles of math are so much symbolic spillage! Each skull grins its thanks for ending their ostracism. Now the bones of our waveforms can dance upon the night skies of whatever. We do not need to count.

Surely the new prophets have come and they bring tidings: we can't know what we know because, you know?
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett
"If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans
"I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat
Donn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 02:42 PM   #348
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 28,360
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
We don't see light as either particles or waves...

No, we don't. But that isn't because of any shortcoming of science. It's just that it is sometimes convenient to consider light as waves, and sometimes convenient to think of it as particles. "Science" doesn't say that it is either.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 03:57 PM   #349
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,039
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Weather prediction.
Wave/particle theory.
"It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do". Einstein
...
What makes you think the math is a failure in describing those things?

Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
...
Mathematics is an incomplete language, it only reflects what we know, and maybe somethings yet to be discovered. I can't assume reality ends when I die because science says it does.
Reality outside of you will not end but the reality of you will end.
There is no valid data to suggest otherwise.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 04:00 PM   #350
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,039
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
We don't see light as either particles or waves, it takes two very recent theories considering how long mankind has been around, to explain it. Also, we only see a very small spectrum of that light. Light that is out of our visual spectrum usually behaves as either a particle at lower frequencies or waves at higher frequencies so you have to choose which mathematical theory to apply to the situation. That doesn't reflect what see or don't see as our reality, it only reflects potential.
This is not exactly a clear example of how a failure of mathematics to describe what can be seen in nature supports something which can not be seen in nature.
In fact, it's not an example at all.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 04:02 PM   #351
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,039
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
If you are arguing that math is imperfect, then the math underlying the science involved when near death experiences happen is inadequate. How do you determine that the near death experience is simply a physiological response and indicative of nothing more from that?
How do you determine that the near death experience is indicative of survival of consciousness?
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 06:42 PM   #352
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,494
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
What is it that is alive after death? Your body is dead so what's left?
I don't know, but so far, science can't be used to prove that there is nothing left.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 06:51 PM   #353
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,494
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
No, we don't. But that isn't because of any shortcoming of science. It's just that it is sometimes convenient to consider light as waves, and sometimes convenient to think of it as particles. "Science" doesn't say that it is either.
Mathematics is a convenient way to describe reality, in this example it's light, and you can pick and choose which theory you want to use to demonstrate that reality, that's cherry picking is it not?

If the mathematics of the science behind near death experience is that inexact then science can't be used as evidence, or proof, that there is no life after death. All it describes is how the brain functions at the point of death.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 06:52 PM   #354
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,494
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
How do you determine that the near death experience is indicative of survival of consciousness?
I don't, but the evidence suggested by near death studies is not indicative that there is no life after death. It describes the process of the dying brain.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 06:55 PM   #355
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,494
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
This is not exactly a clear example of how a failure of mathematics to describe what can be seen in nature supports something which can not be seen in nature.
In fact, it's not an example at all.
It's no different than the example of dividing a whole into thirds or pi. The theory doesn't adequately explain what light is even when you combine both the wave and the particle theory to explain what it is we see in our band of the spectrum. The combined theory doesn't work at all once you go out of our visual spectrum in either direction.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 07:00 PM   #356
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 5,494
Originally Posted by Daylightstar View Post
What makes you think the math is a failure in describing those things?


Reality outside of you will not end but the reality of you will end.
There is no valid data to suggest otherwise.
If the math behind the science is imperfect then the conclusion based on the data can't be definite.
Jodie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 07:11 PM   #357
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
 
Nonpareil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Nethescurial
Posts: 8,104
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
If the math behind the science is imperfect
Which you have yet to show.

The only thing that you have demonstrated to be imperfect is your understanding of mathematics.
__________________
"The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that's hardly worth the effort."
- Norton Juster, The Phantom Tollbooth
Nonpareil is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 07:28 PM   #358
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,018
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
If the math behind the science is imperfect then the conclusion based on the data can't be definite.
Whut??????? "I don't understand mathematics, therefore afterlife?"

This is a very strange form of special pleading at work. You appear to have concluded that poisoning the well on mathematics invalidates any science that uses numbers.

Hang on a second, though... That does NOT create evidence in favor of your assertions, particularly if those assertions use numbers anywhere...
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 07:46 PM   #359
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kalbim Ankara'da.
Posts: 17,328
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
No, if you divide the number 1 or 10 into thirds you get 0.33333... or 3.3333333.... which is infinite. If you divide any object into 3 parts they are finite sections. The reality doesn't match the math.
Three finite sections that won't be ideal thirds. The idea doesn't match reality.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2015, 07:48 PM   #360
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Kalbim Ankara'da.
Posts: 17,328
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
If the math behind the science is imperfect then the conclusion based on the data can't be definite.
Therefore the Bible.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.