|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/27/2008 8:45:24 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
(gluadys) Perhaps a more accurate phrasing is that we can only trace time back to the "Big Bang" minus one plank instant.
Trace time how? Time can only be traced if the necessity for time can be demonstrated.
The expansion of the universe is the necessary demonstratiom.
quote:
"To Be" means to exist.
"Existing" itself is an action requiring duration, which is a function of time.
No, it is not an action.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/27/2008 8:48:05 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(wayward1) The big bang theory has also never had anything to say about whether our universe was the only one or not. Many have begun to think it is not and theorizing this way is doing amazing things to resolve the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics, which I'm sure you know have been incompatible.
David Deutsch, in his book "The fabric of Reality: The Science of parallel Universes and its Implications." New York; Penguin, 1997 begins his description of Parallel Universes with a rather curious phrase, which I shall attempt to paraphrase; "Assume for the sake of the argument, that there is no chaos in our universe."
He then proceeds to construct a Multi-Verse based upon various and sundry "natural" laws applicable to a Multi-Verse. The problem I have with his entire theory is the fact of his "for the sake of the argument" assumption that is the basis for the whole thing. He has made "no Chaos in our universe" a priority prerequisite for a Multi-Verse.
That there IS Chaos in this universe is demonstrated every time my mother-in-law comes to visit. It is real. It is demonstrable. It is not predictable. (If it were predictable, it wouldn't be chaos, would it?)
And so far as I am aware, (which might explain a lot) he is the ONLY physicist who is as advanced in the subject as he obviously is.
I just think we should concentrate on learning the laws of THIS "Verse" and let the "multi" toys stay in the box, "unwrapped."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/27/2008 9:05:10 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Perhaps a more accurate phrasing is that we can only trace time back to the "Big Bang" minus one plank instant.
I think that is exactly correct.
quote:
Now that interests me. You seem to be knowledgeable on this subject. Given the law of conservation of matter/energy would you not agree that all matter and energy in the current universe was in existence at the earliest point of time to which we can trace the existence of the expanding universe? i.e. all matter/energy must have once been contained in a smaller universe?
I'm not what I would call knowledgeable about the subject, but for me it never has made much sense that all matter should be condensed into a singularity where physical laws no longer apply. These are exciting times in cosmology and physics. I'll give you a link here in a minute that will explain much better than I ever could. The big bang theory has also never had anything to say about whether our universe was the only one or not. Many have begun to think it is not and theorizing this way is doing amazing things to resolve the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics, which I'm sure you know have been incompatible.
quote:
The notion of a singularity--although not strictly part of Big Bang theory--would seem to account for this. What other theories are being proposed to account for the current level of matter/energy in the universe without violating the conservation of matter/energy? Are they related to those possible glimpses into conditions "before" the big bang?
Please excuse my answering with a link. I'll not pretend to be a physicist or a cosmologist.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25-3-theories-that-might-blow-up-the-big-bang/?searchterm=big%20bang
Thanks for the link. It is an interesting article. I wonder about Barbour's "no time" hypothesis. If there is no time, what generates the illusion of time?
More pertinent to my question though, while all of them deal in one way or another with time, none of them touches on the conservation of matter/energy. Even as a brane or pocket universe it would seem our universe has always contained its matter/energy in some form or another.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/27/2008 11:18:34 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1025
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Given the law of conservation of matter/energy would you not agree that all matter and energy in the current universe was in existence at the earliest point of time to which we can trace the existence of the expanding universe? i.e. all matter/energy must have once been contained in a smaller universe?
If, as current measurements seem to indicate, the universe is open (i.e. omega < 1, or there is not enough matter to cause the universe to ever collapse back on itself), then the universe has been infinite in spatial extent ever since the singularity.
How does something infinite expand? It sort of stretches, like there's always more room in the Hilbert Hotel.
As we run the clock backward, the universe remains infinite in extent. What changes is that the energy density increases as the expansion goes backward. In the open universe, the singularity is not a spatial singularity or point, it is the energy density becoming singular as it increases without bound toward infinity (where the rules we know break down).
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/27/2008 1:12:38 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Given the law of conservation of matter/energy would you not agree that all matter and energy in the current universe was in existence at the earliest point of time to which we can trace the existence of the expanding universe? i.e. all matter/energy must have once been contained in a smaller universe?
If, as current measurements seem to indicate, the universe is open (i.e. omega < 1, or there is not enough matter to cause the universe to ever collapse back on itself), then the universe has been infinite in spatial extent ever since the singularity.
How does something infinite expand? It sort of stretches, like there's always more room in the Hilbert Hotel.
As we run the clock backward, the universe remains infinite in extent. What changes is that the energy density increases as the expansion goes backward. In the open universe, the singularity is not a spatial singularity or point, it is the energy density becoming singular as it increases without bound toward infinity (where the rules we know break down).
Thanks.
One thing about physics (and math) is that it always stretches the imagination in mind-bending ways. It never ceases to amaze me.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/27/2008 2:50:52 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
Perhaps a more accurate phrasing is that we can only trace time back to the "Big Bang" minus one plank instant.
I think that is exactly correct.
quote:
Now that interests me. You seem to be knowledgeable on this subject. Given the law of conservation of matter/energy would you not agree that all matter and energy in the current universe was in existence at the earliest point of time to which we can trace the existence of the expanding universe? i.e. all matter/energy must have once been contained in a smaller universe?
I'm not what I would call knowledgeable about the subject, but for me it never has made much sense that all matter should be condensed into a singularity where physical laws no longer apply. These are exciting times in cosmology and physics. I'll give you a link here in a minute that will explain much better than I ever could. The big bang theory has also never had anything to say about whether our universe was the only one or not. Many have begun to think it is not and theorizing this way is doing amazing things to resolve the conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics, which I'm sure you know have been incompatible.
quote:
The notion of a singularity--although not strictly part of Big Bang theory--would seem to account for this. What other theories are being proposed to account for the current level of matter/energy in the universe without violating the conservation of matter/energy? Are they related to those possible glimpses into conditions "before" the big bang?
Please excuse my answering with a link. I'll not pretend to be a physicist or a cosmologist.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/apr/25-3-theories-that-might-blow-up-the-big-bang/?searchterm=big%20bang
Thanks for the link. It is an interesting article. I wonder about Barbour's "no time" hypothesis. If there is no time, what generates the illusion of time?
I thought the pages in a book analogy explained it pretty well. "Barbour’s Nows can be imagined as pages of a novel ripped from the book’s spine and tossed randomly onto the floor. Each page is a separate entity. Arranging the pages in some special order and moving through them step by step makes it seem that a story is unfolding. Even so, no matter how we arrange the sheets, each page is complete and independent. For Barbour, reality is just the physics of these Nows taken together as a whole." My take on that was basically that it's a matter of perspective. We have no choice but to go through the infinite number of "nows" in our life. You could say each second has an infinite number of nows in it and that they are never going to stop happening. The current arrangement of all the matter in the universe, including that matter which makes up my heart and your brain, amounts to a now. Once experienced they are gone, not to the past so much as simply rearranged into the arrangement that makes up this current now. Everything simply is, and everything simply changes form at every level constantly. No need to invoke words like "forever" and "eternity" because they imply too much, on a deeply philosophical level, and they have been causing trouble ever since we first imagined them.
Anyway, I'm rambling but I found Barbour's views quite thought provoking and convincing.
quote:
More pertinent to my question though, while all of them deal in one way or another with time, none of them touches on the conservation of matter/energy. Even as a brane or pocket universe it would seem our universe has always contained its matter/energy in some form or another.
Yeah, sorry, I hadn't quite reread the article when I gave you the link. I had recalled that it did get into conservation of matter and energy. Doesn't it at least imply that our concept of those things could be limited? If branes collide would there not be an exchange that upset that law. That's sort of how I took the 4th dimension stuff, and how I took the applicability of this research to resolving quantum mechanics and general relativity. I'm very unsure of myself in this area though.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/27/2008 6:46:48 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
I'm very unsure of myself in this area though.
When we crawl this far out onto the cutting edge of physics and cosmology, I think no one is very sure of anything. 
But thanks for introducing me to some very provocative thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/27/2008 7:42:23 PM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
I'm very unsure of myself in this area though.
When we crawl this far out onto the cutting edge of physics and cosmology, I think no one is very sure of anything.
But thanks for introducing me to some very provocative thinking.
You're very welcome. There is a TED talk video on youtube, given by Richard Dawkins, that is very thought provoking. It has very little to do with religion. It is about the strangeness of science. It helps to understand we're talking about molecular matter. One example he used was that the number of molecules in one glass of water is easily greater than the number of glasses of water in all the earth's oceans, rivers, lakes and streams. The good doctor points out that not one cell in your body is as it was when you were born and then asks if you believe you were there at your birth. The article I linked you to touches on the notion of memories in Barbour's work as well. We made the language that says "I remember it, so I was there." And I must admit that at this moment that seems to me to be a completely logical thing to say. We surely would have made that language relative to our perceptions though. Can science ever change such deeply rooted perceptions as the sheer fundamentally simple and obvious notion of "time"? I don't know.
But not only is our memory not inextricably physically tied to the past in any substantive way, neither are we. All we really have is this now. Any former now exists only as represented by the neurons in our brains that logged away all of the arrangements that have existed so far. And what an imperfect system that is. This concept of "Nows" has led me to view myself, my past my present and my future as little more than various arrangements of matter in the universe I'm part of. When my cells begin to fail to remake themselves, the matter they consist of will no longer arrange itself into what you would call, ME. The matter that makes it possible will only ever change forms, and never cease to be.
What grand good fortune it is to be part of an arrangement of matter with cognition, at this "now" when so much is known about our world.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/28/2008 8:08:20 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(gluadys) Perhaps a more accurate phrasing is that we can only trace time back to the "Big Bang" minus one plank instant.
(theo) Trace time how? Time can only be traced if the necessity for time can be demonstrated.
(gluadys) The expansion of the universe is the necessary demonstratiom.
And the intervening collapse? The universe has expanded and collapsed many "times" and will continue to do so as it imitates God breathing. You know, breathe in, expand; breathe out, collapse!
quote:
(theo) "To Be" means to exist.
"Existing" itself is an action requiring duration, which is a function of time.
(gluadys) No, it is not an action.
(theo) You need a new dictionary.
"BE:" To exist or live.
"EXIST:" to have life, be.
"EXISTENCE:" The state or fact of existing; being.
"ACT:" To perform a function; Be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/28/2008 8:48:54 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
No, the argument that I put on the table was not necessarily an argument for the truth of what a man dies for
quote:
I didn't say that. I said if a person lay downs his life for something that he believes, does that act make what he believes true?
Then in fact you didn't read my post properly for that is exactly the same statement. The answer is no. Just because a person dies for his belief, that act doesn't make the belief true - it just means that he believes it to be true, as no man willingly dies for a known lie.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Now, empiracle evidences are all around us as to the truth of the Bible, but many are blinded because of their sin.
quote:
I do not recognize sin.
No, you just don't recognize sinning against God. It would be extremely simple to prove to you that you DO recognize "sin" though. All I would have to do is convince you that evil exists. In order to do that, all I would have to do is to take you to a place called "Snake Alley" where people pay money to have their lusts fulfilled... In one instance, a man drinks a concoction of snake's blood and hard alcohol, and in his drunken stupor sexually molests an 8 month old girl. This is a true story, and a mild one compared to some of the other acts that occur on a daily basis... Can any father of a young girl hear about such a thing and still think there is no such thing as evil? If there IS such a thing as evil, then there must be a law - a basis for comparison upon which we measure good from evil. If there is this law, then there must be a law giver. If there is no law giver, then there is no law, if there is no law, then there is no evil.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
(read Romans 1: 18-32)
quote:
I prefer to leave the Bible out of it since it is based of faith and under examination.
What portions of the Bible are based upon faith alone? In the opinion of many people, evolution is more of an example of a religion based upon faith alone.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Look at this argument - nothing physical can come to be by it's own power, it must have had a cause. Since every physical thing requires a cause in order to exist, then something non-physical, or supernatural that transcends time must have been the initial cause of everything physical.
quote:
Prove the supernatural transcends time.
The physical universe began at creation. Of the dimensions upon which we measure this universe, time is one of them. The physical universe must have had supernatural origins (that you did not deny), and since time is a part of our physical universe, it too had a beginning that was initiated by a cause not bound by it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Further, it is impossible for this physical universe to have had an infinite number of causes, therefore no beginning.
quote:
Nobody says that it had an infinite causes but an infinite number of universes.
Well, that too is impossible... I've given this illustration before: Let's say that at our feet lies a line of falling dominoes, and we are in front of dominoe "X." Now, if we have an infinate number of falling dominoes that must fall before it gets to "X" then it would never get to "X." It is impossible to have an infinate number of causes, OR an infinate number of universes...
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Jesus rose from the dead. The writers of the gospels stated that he appeared risen to many eyewitnesses with many infallible proofs.
quote:
Those are urban legends and aren't reliable. Many witness the appearance of the Virgin Mary. Do you believe their testimony?
Now you've got a 2 tremendous tasks ahead of you.
#1) Do your research and prove to me and the rest of the witnesses here that Jesus did not raise from the dead. Be sure to document your response.
#2) Prove to me that the documents contained within the Bible are not reliable. Once again, document your sources.
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
one of the biggest proofs of Jesus is a changed life...
quote:
Not proof enough. Many different endeavours can inspire a person, Christianity is just one of them.
Fair enough. How about prophecy fulfillment? The Bible is FULL of predictions of the future that have been confirmed through many secular resources such as the Encyclopedia. You want me to list some, or will you throw them out because they're in the Bible? Furthermore, the Bible is THE ONLY book in the world that dares to make predictions of the future that is accurate 100% of the time. Any other book on the future is mere guesswork.
_____________________________
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/28/2008 9:10:42 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 441
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
(BVZ) Rule of thumb: If there is evidence for something, it is natural.
There must be evidence to support the existence of the thing as well, other wise it would not be natural.
(theo) By that standard, God is natural, not supernatural.
Testimony is the best evidence. Even better than experience, because experience is only evidence for the one experiencing. He/she must of necessity use testimony to explain the experience in order to share it with anyone else.
(BVZ) Testimony is not scientific evidence. We are discussing science here. If we were discussing law, I would understand your confusion, but we are not.
(theo) What we are discussing here is testimony.
(BVZ) This is not a law forum. In law, testimony is regarded as evidence. In science, it is not. Is this so hard for you to understand?
I UNDERSTRAND PERFECTLY YOUR APPLICATION OF THE TERMS. However, I disagree with your conclusion.
You can make any kind of preparation for a scientific experiment. You can have any material, and any scientific application of interaction applied to that material. You still have to give TESTIMONY as to the conclusions reached based upon the results of your experiment.
So? Anything with scientific evidence supporting it is still natural.
quote:
Either that, or every person you want to express your conclusion to will have to redo the same experiment and come up with the same result, and reach the same conclusion as to the meaning of the result. And then you will have to rely on TESTIMONY to come to agreement that you agree.
Testimony and the ability comunicate using language is very useful in science, I agree.
So?
Anything with scientific evidence supporting it is still natural.
quote:
There is NO WAY you are going to eliminate testimony as evidence in scientific experiments.
Testimony is not scientific evidence.
If a scientist tells you the moon is made out of cheese, this will be testimony. This is not scientific evidence.
If a scientist tells you that water is made up of atoms, this will be testimony. This is not scientific evidence either.
The evidence is not the fact that the scientist sais something, but rather how he SUPPORTS what he sais, using actualy evidence derived from REALITY.
Do you understand now?
And again, even if scientific evidence needs testimony to become useful, how does this change the fact that for something to be natural, it must be supported with scientific evidence?
quote:
If you do the entire experiment yourself, you still depend upon the testimony of others as to the values of the materials you use, the conditions of the experiment, or some facet or other of the experiment itself., And the more complicated the experiment, the more testimony of other will contribute to your results and your conclusions.
I agree that language and testimony is a very useful tool in science. In fact, without comunication, science will not happen.
But again I have to ask, what does this have to do with the fact that all natural things are supported by scientific evidence?
quote:
Now, give us your testimony as to why this is not so.
Do you really think that because I am using language when communicating with you this makes me wrong? You are very confused.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/28/2008 9:48:09 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
(BVZ) Rule of thumb: If there is evidence for something, it is natural.
There must be evidence to support the existence of the thing as well, other wise it would not be natural.
(theo) By that standard, God is natural, not supernatural.
Testimony is the best evidence. Even better than experience, because experience is only evidence for the one experiencing. He/she must of necessity use testimony to explain the experience in order to share it with anyone else.
(BVZ) Testimony is not scientific evidence. We are discussing science here. If we were discussing law, I would understand your confusion, but we are not.
(theo) What we are discussing here is testimony.
(BVZ) This is not a law forum. In law, testimony is regarded as evidence. In science, it is not. Is this so hard for you to understand?
I UNDERSTRAND PERFECTLY YOUR APPLICATION OF THE TERMS. However, I disagree with your conclusion.
You can make any kind of preparation for a scientific experiment. You can have any material, and any scientific application of interaction applied to that material. You still have to give TESTIMONY as to the conclusions reached based upon the results of your experiment.
quote:
(BVZ) So? Anything with scientific evidence supporting it is still natural.
(theo) Evidence can "support" scientific experiment all day long, but stands dead in the water without testimony to disseminate it. And yes, testimony certainly IS scientific. Are you really that unknowing about "scientific jargon?" EVERY field of science developes its own field of "jargon" pertaining to its own field of expertise. And it is developed EXPRESSLY for the purpose of testimony.
quote:
(theo)And then you will have to rely on TESTIMONY to come to agreement that you agree.
(BVZ) Testimony and the ability comunicate using language is very useful in science, I agree. So?
Anything with scientific evidence supporting it is still natural.
(theo) I begin to perceive what the issue really is. You are speaking of "using language" as though "using language" is somehow different from "giving testimony." They are ONE AND THE SAME.
quote:
(theo) There is NO WAY you are going to eliminate testimony as evidence in scientific experiments.
(BVZ) Testimony is not scientific evidence.
If a scientist tells you the moon is made out of cheese, this will be testimony. This is not scientific evidence.
If a scientist tells you that water is made up of atoms, this will be testimony. This is not scientific evidence either.
The evidence is not the fact that the scientist sais something, but rather how he SUPPORTS what he sais, using actualy evidence derived from REALITY.
Do you understand now?
(theo) Very well. You do not know that testimony about scientific things is scientific testimony. I think you are confusing "scientific jargon" for scienific testimony. You seem to think if it does not include the jargon it is not scientific. Your realier attempt to replace "testimony" with "using language" seems to clear up a whole passel of sins.
"Language;" "Testimony;" "Communication:" All synonyms for the same thing, different only in some degree of application. And Evidence depends upon "Language, testimony, communication," to be able to function as evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/28/2008 10:20:42 AM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
Can I conjecture to resolve the "evidence" -vs- "testimony" thing?
Dictionary...
Testimony: evidence in support of a fact or statement; proof.
Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
OK, taking these two statements and their definitions together, then...
TESTIMONY is that which tends to prove or disprove something in support of a fact or statement.
Now... Anyone gonna argue with Mr. Webster? (Who was a Christian by the way, and the dictionary USED to be written with Bible quotes when sentences needed to be used to show how a word was used...)
_____________________________
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/28/2008 1:19:05 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Can I conjecture to resolve the "evidence" -vs- "testimony" thing?
Dictionary...
Testimony: evidence in support of a fact or statement; proof.
Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
OK, taking these two statements and their definitions together, then...
TESTIMONY is that which tends to prove or disprove something in support of a fact or statement.
Now... Anyone gonna argue with Mr. Webster? (Who was a Christian by the way, and the dictionary USED to be written with Bible quotes when sentences needed to be used to show how a word was used...)
May I enquire as to whether you find any evidence for a difference in testimony as it relates to science as opposed to law?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/28/2008 1:36:00 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Can I conjecture to resolve the "evidence" -vs- "testimony" thing?
Dictionary...
Testimony: evidence in support of a fact or statement; proof.
Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
OK, taking these two statements and their definitions together, then...
TESTIMONY is that which tends to prove or disprove something in support of a fact or statement.
Now... Anyone gonna argue with Mr. Webster? (Who was a Christian by the way, and the dictionary USED to be written with Bible quotes when sentences needed to be used to show how a word was used...)
May I enquire as to whether you find any evidence for a difference in testimony as it relates to science as opposed to law?
Well, in short I don't see how you can have evidence without testimony and expect it to mean anything...
Let me give you a hypothetical situation, if I were to come up to you and hand you an old raggedy looking and beat up fishing pole that didn't even work and ask you to hold on to it for me for a few days, you might agree and throw it in your garage. Over time it may get trampled on or even accidentally broken because you feel that in looking at it that there's nothing special about it... But if I ask you to hold onto this raggedy old fishing pole because this is the fishing pole that my grandfather was holding in his hands when he had a heart attack and died and represents a deep passion for him in his life and I can remember years worth of afternoons fishing with him in which he told me about God - you'd look at that fishing pole quite differently. You might even wrap it in bubble wrap and place it in your fireproof gunsafe for safe keeping...
See how a testimony changes everything? Without a testimony, the evidence is just a busted old fishing pole...
_____________________________
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/28/2008 1:37:18 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Can I conjecture to resolve the "evidence" -vs- "testimony" thing?
Dictionary...
Testimony: evidence in support of a fact or statement; proof.
Evidence: that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
OK, taking these two statements and their definitions together, then...
TESTIMONY is that which tends to prove or disprove something in support of a fact or statement.
Now... Anyone gonna argue with Mr. Webster? (Who was a Christian by the way, and the dictionary USED to be written with Bible quotes when sentences needed to be used to show how a word was used...)
May I enquire as to whether you find any evidence for a difference in testimony as it relates to science as opposed to law?
Well, in short I don't see how you can have evidence without testimony and expect it to mean anything...
Let me give you a hypothetical situation, if I were to come up to you and hand you an old raggedy looking and beat up fishing pole that didn't even work and ask you to hold on to it for me for a few days, you might agree and throw it in your garage. Over time it may get trampled on or even accidentally broken because you feel that in looking at it that there's nothing special about it... But if I ask you to hold onto this raggedy old fishing pole because this is the fishing pole that my grandfather was holding in his hands when he had a heart attack and died and represents a deep passion for him in his life and I can remember years worth of afternoons fishing with him in which he told me about God - you'd look at that fishing pole quite differently. You might even wrap it in bubble wrap and place it in your fireproof gunsafe for safe keeping...
See how a testimony changes everything? Without a testimony, the evidence is just a busted old fishing pole...
Thank you. You only strengthen my argument.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/28/2008 2:19:21 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1122
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) Sure it can. If the defense attorney, due to the factual content of the evidence, gets the prosecutor to testify "The DNA is not the DNA of either the victim or the defendant" how can it NOT effect a change in the trial? And it is TESTIMONY that overrides the DNA.
Are men freed from jail due to DNA evidence that trumps eyewitness accounts? Yep, sure does. Evidence trumps testimony. Why? As Dr. House puts it, "People lie and people are wrong, the evidence doesn't lie." Evidence is independent of anyone's testimony.
quote:
You CANNOT simply supply evidence without testimony to make known why it is relevant and to give meaning to it. The same principle is involved whether in a legal court of trial by jury, or in a scientific laboratory of experiment. TESTIMONY rules.
But the results are not dependent on the testimony. An expert witness has to present their results in the form of gels, blots, etc. The results are not the results just because the expert witness says so. They are the results because this is the consistent result of the experiments as done by both sides in the case. One can doubt the truth of any eyewitness account, but once the DNA results are confirmed they are not up for questioning.
The importance of DNA results as to the verdict are a judgement call, but the results are not up for discussion unless there are inconclusive experimental results.
quote:
And THAT is living in a dream world. MOST of the DNA evidence offered in courts still today, is offered by defense attorneys to free men who have been in prison for YEARS for crimes they did not commit. When they free all the innocent prisoners, then the bulk of the DNA may well become proof of guilt, but in the interum, it is proof of innocence.
So DNA trumps eyewitness accounts? Why is that?
quote:
And it is with mounds of TESTIMONY that the evidence is presented.
TESTIMONY STILL RULES.
In science it is not called testimony. It is called communication. You communicate your results. Testimonial evidence is not considered scientific evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/28/2008 2:21:39 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1122
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
May I enquire as to whether you find any evidence for a difference in testimony as it relates to science as opposed to law?
Unverifiable eyewitness accounts are not allowed as scientific evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/28/2008 3:11:07 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) Sure it can. If the defense attorney, due to the factual content of the evidence, gets the prosecutor to testify "The DNA is not the DNA of either the victim or the defendant" how can it NOT effect a change in the trial? And it is TESTIMONY that overrides the DNA.
Are men freed from jail due to DNA evidence that trumps eyewitness accounts? Yep, sure does. Evidence trumps testimony. Why? As Dr. House puts it, "People lie and people are wrong, the evidence doesn't lie." Evidence is independent of anyone's testimony.
Try just throwing a pile of evidence on the judge's bench and see what it gets you. He will demand you either offer testimony, or get the "evidence" off his bench.
quote:
(theo) You CANNOT simply supply evidence without testimony to make known why it is relevant and to give meaning to it. The same principle is involved whether in a legal court of trial by jury, or in a scientific laboratory of experiment. TESTIMONY rules.
quote:
(method) But the results are not dependent on the testimony. An expert witness has to present their results in the form of gels, blots, etc. The results are not the results just because the expert witness says so. They are the results because this is the consistent result of the experiments as done by both sides in the case. One can doubt the truth of any eyewitness account, but once the DNA results are confirmed they are not up for questioning.
(theo) You have missed the point entirely. It is totally true "the results are not dependent upon the testimony." BUT, (and this is the significant thing you have continued to miss) The SHARING of what the evidence MEANS is totally dependent upon the testimony. Evidence is just a pile of "stuff" unless and until someone speaks up and explains the significance that is to be attatched to it. It has no MEANING to anyone without testimony as to what that meaning is.
quote:
(method) The importance of DNA results as to the verdict are a judgement call, but the results are not up for discussion unless there are inconclusive experimental results.
(theo) And THAT is living in a dream world. MOST of the DNA evidence offered in courts still today, is offered by defense attorneys to free men who have been in prison for YEARS for crimes they did not commit. When they free all the innocent prisoners, then the bulk of the DNA may well become proof of guilt, but in the interum, it is proof of innocence.
(method) So DNA trumps eyewitness accounts? Why is that?
(theo) You fail to understand that even testimony has to be checked for truth values. DNA evidence is presented to a jury or even to a scientific body of evaluators, with testimony as to what it means. The scientist evaluates the evidence, and offers a conclusion as to whether the testimony given was valid, or false. And it is testimony that defines the evaluation of the previous testimony. There is no getting away from the fact of testimony, the value of testimony, and the significance of testimony in all that is communicated between men.
quote:
(method)
In science it is not called testimony. It is called communication. You communicate your results. Testimonial evidence is not considered scientific evidence.
(theo) THAT is a subjective evaluation at best. It makes no difference what scientists CALL it, the fact remains it IS testimony if it is verbally offered in communication, by virtue of the very definition of "testimony."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Conflicts... - 7/29/2008 3:39:25 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 441
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo_book
(theo) Sure it can. If the defense attorney, due to the factual content of the evidence, gets the prosecutor to testify "The DNA is not the DNA of either the victim or the defendant" how can it NOT effect a change in the trial? And it is TESTIMONY that overrides the DNA.
Are men freed from jail due to DNA evidence that trumps eyewitness accounts? Yep, sure does. Evidence trumps testimony. Why? As Dr. House puts it, "People lie and people are wrong, the evidence doesn't lie." Evidence is independent of anyone's testimony.
Try just throwing a pile of evidence on the judge's bench and see what it gets you. He will demand you either offer testimony, or get the "evidence" off his bench.
I explained this to you before. You missed it completely. I am not surprised.
I agree that languange and testimony is needed to make evidence useful. So what?
It doesn't matter what you say, testimony and scientific evidence are not worth the same. Sorry to burst your bubble though.
quote:
quote:
(theo) You CANNOT simply supply evidence without testimony to make known why it is relevant and to give meaning to it. The same principle is involved whether in a legal court of trial by jury, or in a scientific laboratory of experiment. TESTIMONY rules.
quote:
(method) But the results are not dependent on the testimony. An expert witness has to present their results in the form of gels, blots, etc. The results are not the results just because the expert witness says so. They are the results because this is the consistent result of the experiments as done by both sides in the case. One can doubt the truth of any eyewitness account, but once the DNA results are confirmed they are not up for questioning.
(theo) You have missed the point entirely. It is totally true "the results are not dependent upon the testimony." BUT, (and this is the significant thing you have continued to miss) The SHARING of what the evidence MEANS is totally dependent upon the testimony. Evidence is just a pile of "stuff" unless and until someone speaks up and explains the significance that is to be attatched to it. It has no MEANING to anyone without testimony as to what that meaning is.
Sure. But if you have testomony without evidence, don't expect people to take you seriously.
quote:
quote:
(method) The importance of DNA results as to the verdict are a judgement call, but the results are not up for discussion unless there are inconclusive experimental results.
(theo) And THAT is living in a dream world. MOST of the DNA evidence offered in courts still today, is offered by defense attorneys to free men who have been in prison for YEARS for crimes they did not commit. When they free all the innocent prisoners, then the bulk of the DNA may well become proof of guilt, but in the interum, it is proof of innocence.
(method) So DNA trumps eyewitness accounts? Why is that?
(theo) You fail to understand that even testimony has to be checked for truth values. DNA evidence is presented to a jury or even to a scientific body of evaluators, with testimony as to what it means. The scientist | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
