Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
My example to Rath is just that: It is observed (hypothetically) that matter cannot be created physically, then observed that matter comes into existence. These are contradictory if you don't invoke the supernatural, are they not? For how could matter become without physical means if the physical is all there is?
For your example; yes, I've acknowledged that to Khuutra. My example is not such a situation. Your's entails having a well-established observation become a not-well-established observation. Mine, on the other hand, shows two well-established observations that are not contradictory unless the sole existence of the phsyical is assumed.
|
How exactly could you "observe" that matter cannot be created? It's nonsensical. The most you could say is "I have never seen this happen." "This cannot happen" is a THEORY derived from never seeing it happen. Which would then be shown to be incorrect.
Your hypothetical observation is impossible.
|
What are you talking about? It's (or, at least was) a law in physics.
Edit: And that is how science operates: after a number of "I have seen this", it becomes a "This always is".
|
You said "IT IS OBSERVED that matter cannot be created etc. etc." Not that it was mathematically impossible.
It's either a scientific theory based on observation,
or a fact (proven theorem) of mathematics.
If it's the first, then your hypothetical scenario makes no sense. If it's the second, then why did you ask me to "imagine that the math doesn't work"? Because clearly, for the purposes of this discussion, you cannot simultaneously invoke the fact that it does and the idea that it doesn't.
And since you SPECIFICALLY TOLD ME that your supposed contradiction was found because of two contradicting observations, your objection maddens me.
I'm going to work in a bit.
Responding to your edit: AND THAT'S WHAT THEY CALL A FUCKING THEORY!
|
Heh, sorry, don't mean to make you frustrated :P
It's the first (I'm not sure why you're bringing math back into this, but whatever). We've already gone over what a well-established observation is, and you agreed to it. It is observed enough so that it is assumed it's true (basic tenet here). So, it makes perfect sense (thanks Rol).
As for your last objection, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but I'll attempt to answer. You are referring to whenever a theory gets overturned in light of new observations that are the opposite of what was originally observed, but what I'm referring to is two observations that would contradict unless a supernatural answer was imposed (if all there is is the physical, then we have a contradiction, yes?). These are different in that the first is demonstrating that the original observation is no longer well-observed, while the other is not a case of that.
