Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I Don't Think You Understood Me

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harv........ on April 11, 2001 22:03:19 UTC

I'm not talking about Pythagorean's theorem as a mathematical articulation, rather I'm saying that if a mathematical theorem was postulated as a scientific equation that somehow generated the universe (with predictions to boot), then this highly successful approach would still be unconfirmable as a scientific fact. That is, we cannot use science to find ontological laws that cause the universe. Rather, we postulate empirical theories that describe and predict our observations under such and such conditions. That's it.

You seem to be saying that the equations of pure mathematics can somehow be assembled into a scientific TOE theory. That may be possible, but we cannot prove anything ontological about that TOE equation because we don't have omniscient knowledge of the world and therefore cannot make any ontological statements within the framework of science.

What exact statement am I making that you are disagreeing with?

Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins