Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: shira
But, again, you implicitly stating that God + theory = theory. That is the flaw in your argument. If right-hand side of your equation is a theory, the left-hand side is most certainly NOT the same theory (and not a theory at all), since there are "terms on the left that can't be filled in. You have undefined "quantities" that cannot be resolved. You have no way of setting up a "value" for "God."
I thought you were an engineer and so this would appeal to you, but apparently you don't grasp the concept of a model. If I change around the model slightly, using something like the diffusion equation, which governs conservation of energy/mass/momentum,
du/dt=D*d^2u/dx^2,
then D is a parameter characterizing something about how viscous a material is, how a material diffuses, how a material conducts heat, or several other possibilites. The model tells us nothing about the value of this parameter, so it is determined experimentally, often using a different model (e.g. Einstein's equation for the viscosity of a dilute suspension of particles). If I modify the conservation equation to include some source term (like a reaction rate or heat source), then it has the form du/dt=D*d^2u/dx^2+k*u. Both of these models can equally describe a nonreactive system, though the latter is more general and applies to a broader class of systems. Abstracting this idea beyond the realm of such simple differential equations, the parameter 'k' can become very complex, even containing imaginary components (i.e. it is not necessarily a real-valued parameter). So, why does adding this k*u term make the second model invalid?
Furthermore, as I wrote earlier, the addition of God answers nothing in the observed data, and it is thus illegitimiate to add the "God term," meaning that what you have proposed is not a valid theory.
Similarly, in your two equations, if A = ax expressed a valid theory, than B = ax + bi does NOT express the same theory. Only if the bi term addresses observed or expected data would the second expression be a valid theory (and in that case, A = ax would be invalid).
You cannot get around this. You are literally comparing a theory with a non-theory. Absurd. Yet you circularly respond "both are equivalent theories." I reject that claim, and merely repeating yourself won't convince me of anything.
Well, I'm not going to argue with you on the validity of a mathematical model. Unless you can concede the simple-minded idea that infinitely many models may be proposed that describe any data set, then there really isn't anything else I can say to you except you're totally and utterly wrong. *shrug*
Again, nonsense.
C0 + C1x + C2X**2 + C3X**3 + C4x**4 + . . . . is a general polynomial expression. You want to claim that infinitely many expressions of that form can equivalently be used to describe a given physical phenomenon. But that's nonsense. Consider for example:
C0 + C1x + C2x**2 (where x in this case is time) expresses distance traveled in a gravitational field as a function of time. You want to claim that:
C0' + C1'x + C2'x**2 + C3'x**3 is an identical "model." But that's absurd. In fact, the second expression can more accurately take into account variations in the gravitational field (for example, the change in gravitation as the distance to a body decreases). And even higher order terms can be added to increase accuracy. I know this for a fact: for many years, I worked on an earth gravitational model (in order to improve long-term predictions of satellite orbits), and we used no less than 12 terms.
So although
as an approximation you might say that lower- and higher-order expression are equivalent, they are in fact completely different.
What is more, you're using mathematical expression in your arguments, yet then slyly substituting God. You're adding a "God term" into a theory, then stating that what results is both a theory AND equivalent to the unadulterated theory. Sorry, unless you can inform us how to USE the "God term" in evaluating the expression, you've merely added noise.
Please, tell us what the coefficient is for God. Tell us what the initial conditions are with which to set the God term. Tell us ANYTHING that allows the God term to be usefully incorporated into a theoretical framework, or tell us what experiments we might perform to refine the God term. What? You just want to leave the God term vague and mysterious and insist that its addition doesn't invalidate the model/theory?
It's amazing to me that someone can be in graduate school in science yet have so little understanding of what science is.
As I wrote earlier, I don't mock those who arrive at their beliefs as a matter of discipline. But it's difficult NOT to mock someone with such vapid ideas as yourself.