Re: Letter to the Editor: The truth of ID is self-evident

Jason Spaceman wrote:
From the article:
--------------------------------------------------------
Feb 11, 2006 ? In the founding documents of our republic, our
forefathers opened with the statement that "these truths are
self-evident" and they went on to enumerate the individual rights
endowed to man by his creator. No scientific proof, no all-knowing
high school science instructor, no home-grown self-proclaimed
philosopher/editorialist - and yet self-evident.

Almost everyone knows of Pythagoras as an amazing mathematician. Ask
yourself, how did Pythagoras discover that the area of a circle is
radius squared times 22/7.

This article is silly for numerous reasons pointed out by others. But
it should be noted in passing that Pythagoras probably didn't know much
about the area of a circle, although he and his school contributed
importantly to the early development of geometry. The Pythagoreans
already had trouble with the square root of two since it is an
irrational number. Pi is what mathematicians call a transcendental
number---it is not a rational number like 22/7, nor even a root of a
polynomial equation with rational coefficients like the square root of
two. The Pythagoreans would have had even more trouble with Pi. The
source of the Pythagoreans problems with irrational numbers was their
mystical belief that everything was based on whole numbers or at worst
ratios of whole numbers. They were the original numerologists.

I believe that a complete understanding of the area of a circle awaited
Archimedes.

During his lifetime there was no accurate
way of physically (scientifically) measuring the area of a circle. The
tools just didn't exist.


Now that they do exist, we know that his
equations were exactly on the mark. How did he do it? He reasoned to
it. Einstein did the same with his great discoveries. Imagine that,
their minds were able to conclude things before they had physical
proof.

The formula Pi R squared, applies not to physical circles but to
circles in Euclidena geometry, which the anceints from Euclid on
understood as an axiomatic system. The derivation of the formula was
based on reasoning from the principles, and didn't depend for
verification on any measurements. Of course, the ancients thought that
Euclidean geometry described the geometry of real objects, and it does
to a high degree of precision in our immediate local environment. But
since einstein, we know that it doesn't describe the geometry of space
exactly in the vicinity of massive objects. This doesn't make much
difference in most practical applications on Earth, but it is a large
enough effect to affect the accuracy of GPS locators. In any case,
Archimedes reasoning was as valid at the time as it is today, and still
applies to circles in Euclidean geometry. No physical proof is
necessary. Indeed physical evidence today shows us that the formula is
not quite correct when applied to circles in the actual universe.

Einstein's ideas were based in part on known physical measurments, but
also involved clearing up apparent inconsistencies in existing physical
theories. He also was quite imaginative in applying new mathematical
ideas to physics. But his theories were verified by observations in
fairly short time, and with the passage of more time, more and more
experiments have been done which verify his basic theories. Had that
not been the case, his theories would have fallen into disuse and
considered a minor episode in the history of physics. The history of
science is full of examples of daring innovative theories, achieved by
pure reasoning, which were not consistent with observation, and which
were abandoned.


While I would not dispute that evolutionary changes occur in animal
life, including humans (as is obvious from the varying shades of our
skin, the shape of our eyes, etc.) the missing link remains the
absence of species change (the feline who became a canine or the
anything that becomes a human). To most Christians, the essential fact
of our being is common parentage. If we are not all descendants of
Adam and Eve, then we do not have common parentage. We are not all
brothers and sisters (goodbye to the brotherhood of man) and would not
have the need of Christ's redemption since original sin would not be
part of our lineage.

In my mind (and coincidentally in the minds of Pythagoras and
Einstein), the ordered universe we live in could not have come about
by chance, and we can reason to intelligent design.

The history described here would more likely lead to the idea that the
religious principles that lead to intelligent design would apply to
worlds to which those principles applied. But unless there is evidence
that this is the world we actually live in, then one can't conclude that
the principles are true. In point of fact, this whole enterprise is
based on very poor analogies, so one can't really claim anything at all
about intelligent design from the examples of Pythagoras (actually
Archimedes) and einstein.


TOM SKEHAN
DOVER TOWNSHIP
--------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at http://www.ydr.com/letters/ci_3497699










J. Spaceman


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Mass an Emergent Quantity in an Electro Magnetic Universe?
    ... consistent with the continuous and efficient curvature of the circle, ... Equal arc lengths from the same circle will radially enclose ... With the real world orbits this symmetric efficiency is retained in ... I have done here what the non-calculus physics text does because it is ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Fundamental constants and the fine-tuning argument
    ... The idea is if you understand what a circle is, ... mathematics and physics share a considerable overlap. ... but a circle is a mathematical concept that can be applied ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fundamental constants and the fine-tuning argument
    ... The idea is if you understand what a circle is, ... mathematics and physics share a considerable overlap. ... Given that speed is also a ratio (distance divided by ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: AETHER / OR
    ... >> one circle on your paper, then draw another. ... > Math is about things that only exist in our intellects. ... as I have too much physics to learn before ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Letter to the Editor: The truth of ID is self-evident
    ... how did Pythagoras discover that the area of a circle is ... During his lifetime there was no accurate ... way of physically measuring the area of a circle. ... How was Pythagoras involved, really? ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading