Concerns About Sony's Religious Intolerance

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Pardon, but what would be left unexplained in physics? The whole point of a GUT is to create one theory to explain all aspects of physics. Godel's theorem clearly implies that it can't be done, as there will always be questions unanswerable. I have no problem with Unification Theories, just the idea of a all-encompassing GUT.... But the belief that there can be a GUT, is an act of "faith".

Godel's theorem is about mathematics. A GUT is about physics - the two are fundamentally different. Mathematics is a discipline in which statements may be proved or disproved. Physics, as a science, is a disipline which is trying to produce models of our reality, without making any statement about their absolute "truth". The fact that science uses mathematics in its toolkit does not imply that they are one and the same.

/JB

[HarryT]

You're taking it way to literally, Ralph. What people are looking for is a PRACTICAL theory to unify, say, QM with gravity. Something that can be used to make "real world" prediction of the behaviour of, say, both stars and the structure of atoms. Nobody is saying that such a theory could "answer all the questions of physics", and it certainly wouldn't run into problems with Godel. Writing a complete "manual of how the universe works" would, but nobody's trying to do that.

[Greg Anos]

Good thing I didn't pick a controversial example.... I'm not taking it too literal, but some of the physicists have.

[nekokami]

Personally, I've found the distinction between "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" quite helpful. A "strong atheist" believes there is no god; a "weak atheist" believes the question is irrelevant. Most atheists are probably "weak atheists" under this reading. It would be nice to have another term ("apatheist" isn't bad, actually) because I can see that putting "weak" in there probably makes people object to the phrase just because it might make them seem wishy-washy or something. But it really is different from agnosticism.

I'm a theist, as it happens. But I don't actually happen to believe that the divine cares whether anyone believes or not.

HarryT, thanks for the explanation about novae, and for the recommendation on Plato. It'll probably have to wait until the end of the semester, but it's on my to-read list.

Regarding scientists who take certain elements of science on faith, yes, of course there are some. But I don't think that's the point of the enterprise of science, whether we're talking about the GUT or any other theory. At least, the scientists I work with may express that they have hopes that a GUT will help simplify some problems of physics, but I don't know of any who think it will really answer "everything." Even physicists can resort to poetic names for things sometimes.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Godel's theorem states that for any system of mathematics, there will be questions definable in that mathematics that cannot be answered by that mathematics. Since all GUTs are describable only in mathematics, no matter how the results can be applied, it can't describe everything, inherently.

The theorem only say something about the formal system. For a specific reality you can always construct a fomalism that can describe everything in this specific reality.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Writing a complete "manual of how the universe works" would, but nobody's trying to do that.

Why is this a problem? Are you assuming that an infinite "manual" is needed?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why is this a problem? Are you assuming that an infinite "manual" is needed?

A "manual" which specified precisely how every process in the universe operates, in complete accordance with "reality" might run into conflict with Godel's theorum. I don't believe it will ever be a "practical" problem, though because, as both you and I have both said, physicists don't try to find out how the universe "really" works, but simply to devise theories which are good enough to make agree with experimental results and make useful predictions from.

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by nekokami

("apatheist" isn't bad, actually)

It would be a very very bad term, because if there's one thing that kills the most people in a single day, it's apathy. Why would you want to identify with that?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A "manual" which specified precisely how every process in the universe operates, in complete accordance with "reality" might run into conflict with Godel's theorum.

And it might not. The argument for a conflict found in links given was not convincing to me. I suspect there is some misunderstanding about what Gödel's theorem says.

The reason I asked was that you wrote 'Writing a complete "manual of how the universe works" would' but now you have modified this to "might" and that I can agree with.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Personally, I've found the distinction between "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" quite helpful. A "strong atheist" believes there is no god; a "weak atheist" believes the question is irrelevant. Most atheists are probably "weak atheists" under this reading. It would be nice to have another term ("apatheist" isn't bad, actually) because I can see that putting "weak" in there probably makes people object to the phrase just because it might make them seem wishy-washy or something. But it really is different from agnosticism.

I'm a theist, as it happens. But I don't actually happen to believe that the divine cares whether anyone believes or not.

HarryT, thanks for the explanation about novae, and for the recommendation on Plato. It'll probably have to wait until the end of the semester, but it's on my to-read list.

Regarding scientists who take certain elements of science on faith, yes, of course there are some. But I don't think that's the point of the enterprise of science, whether we're talking about the GUT or any other theory. At least, the scientists I work with may express that they have hopes that a GUT will help simplify some problems of physics, but I don't know of any who think it will really answer "everything." Even physicists can resort to poetic names for things sometimes.

So neko, does that make you a "weak theist"?

I used to tell people that my beliefs were a multiple choice depending on how I currently felt.

A. There is no god.

B. There is a god but he doesn't care about us.

C. There is a god, he cares and he is out to screw us over completely.

[amgoforth]

[QUOTE=zelda_pinwheel;333532]i admit i am not religious, so i'm sure i don't have the same perspective as you, but just out of curiosity, if there had been a markedly religious book on there, for example one of the Left Behind series, would you react the same way ?]




What if it had been a book that critical of Islam, Or Gays. That will never happen because we are so sensitive to their feelings. Well how about a little respect for christians? However I have no problem with that book. If that book hurts someone's faith they are little short on brains.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by amgoforth

What if it had been a book that critical of ... Gays. That will never happen because we are so sensitive to their feelings.

You mean a book like the Bible, which says that all homosexuals should be executed?

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You mean a book like the Bible, which says that all homosexuals should be executed?

Before things get... unpleasant (and they look like they're about to), I'd just like to say "Let's keep this pleasant".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Valloric

Before things get... unpleasant (and they look like they're about to), I'd just like to say "Let's keep this pleasant".

No unpleasantness intended whatsoever, Valloric. The previous poster said that Sony would be criticised if they were to distribute a book which was critical of homosexuality. I am merely pointing out that the Bible is precisely such a book. That is a simple statement of fact.

Of course, it illustrates nothing more than how careful one has to be about applying the cultural standards of one particular part of the world, 2000 years ago, to an entirely different culture in the modern world.

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No unpleasantness intended whatsoever, Valloric.

I wasn't referring to you, but to potential responses to your post. I'm not saying your reference isn't valid (it most certainly is), it's just likely to anger people.