Wikipedia - Occam's Razor
Occam's razor is a powerful tool in the hands of scientists. It allows them to give varying levels of probability to competing theories, and keeps modern science from being overwhelmed by complex, superfluous and redundant mechanisms.
When applied to the question of whether or not there exists a god or gods, it often yields a simple answer in the minds of the scientist asking the question: No.
However, this answer is not truly in keeping with the principles of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism (I will refer to it as the scientific method, or SM from now on), when applied properly to any problems dictates clearly that there is no black/white distinction. There are no "Yes" or "No" answers in science, there are only "Highly probable" and "Highly improbable" answers. Even when faced with such seemingly straightforward questions as "Will an electron and a positron annihilate when collided?" the most accurate answer given is "It is highly probable", because it is impossible to determine if every single such collision will result in the annihilation of both particles. We cannot observe every such collision.
Now, many answers are so probable that a "Yes" answer can be seen as both honest and accurate. We have never observed such a collision that did not result in the annihilation of both particles. In these cases, the answer given is usually "Yes", because it takes less effort to say "Yes" than it does to explain the whole concept of the SM, and because a less assertive answer gives the impression of a less likely probability than is truly the case. Saying "Maybe" to the above question implies that we have observed such collisions without observing the annihilation of both particles, which is untrue. For this reason, we usually say "Yes" when the proper answer is "It is likely to such a degree that we have never failed to observe it."
That being said, we have changed the answer to the question of a god's existence to "It is so unlikely that we have never observed any evidence for any god's existence."
This is nominally the most scientifically accurate answer that can be given to the question, but it still doesn't quite cut it. Occam's razor is not a fundamental principle in physics, astronomy, neuroscience, etc. It is a principle of the SM, a principle by which science is conducted, not a principle by which the universe operates, and when applied to the question of the existence of a god, the most proper answer is "There is no need to invoke the existence of any god or gods in order to explain the natural universe."
This is the answer I stand by with regards to the question. I have never observed any aspect of our universe which requires that any god or gods exist. Nor have I ever been informed of such an aspect without later learning it to be a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of the actual nature of this phenomenon.
That being said, I've pointed out that I believe in god several times.
I do not find any conflict between these two positions because of some studying in the nature of religion and universally agreed upon aspects of god or the gods.
When one looks throughout the various religions of the world which include a deity, one can find many many differences. The Germanic god Wotan demanded human sacrifices, while the Roman god Jupiter demanded the sacrifice of bulls. Ba'al has been worshiped with infanticide, while the Christian god demands no such sacrifice (contrasted with the god of the old testament, who did demand sacrifices of livestock).
One thing that all the gods throughout human history have demanded of us, however, is an acknowledgment of their existence. The ancient Egyptian gods were often themselves pharaohs, known to exist, while the demands of sacrifice necessitate an acceptance of the deity to which the sacrifice is committed.
With this being said, if any god or pantheon of gods exists, it is most logical to assume that the basis of any fundamental religion would be found in the acceptance of their existence. Another aspect which is universal is that the god or gods have some plan which they wish to succeed, and which involves humanity. In the case of the Christian god, that plan is for the 'salvation' of mankind. In the case of the Norse/Germanic gods, that plan is to achieve victory in the final battle between good and evil.
Over the course of human history, our perception of religion has shifted remarkably. Early deities began with the neolithic "mother goddess", and progressed throughout the centuries until we arrive at the modern religions such as Christianity and Islam. Perhaps the most noticeable shift in paradigms that religion has undergone is the paring down of religious requirements until one arrives at the basic requirements for the two most recent major religions: belief.
(Note that while both religions make other demands upon the adherents, the question of faith is the deciding factor in almost every interpretation.)
So those who believe in the existence of a god or gods arrive at a seeming paradox: They demand we believe in them, but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that we should.
So what resolves this conflict? The answer lies in the most universal phenomenon that humanity has ever encountered: Logic.
The universe operates logically. Even the probabilities of quantum mechanics obey the rules of logic. If a particle has a 70% probability of appearing in a certain spot under certain conditions, then about 7 out of 10 times it will appear in that spot under those conditions. The more times you repeat this experiment, the closer the numbers get to 7 out of 10. At 100 repetitions, it may have appeared at that spot only 69 times, but at 1000 repetitions, it may appear at that spot 697 times. At 1 million repetitions, we see it appear at that spot 699,992 times. When the experiment is performed ad infinitum, we see that the 70% probability is precisely represented. This is perfectly logical.
When we apply the rules of logic to any system, we see that they fit precisely. Therefore, any considerations of the existence of a god or gods must be logical, if it is to be as valid as the knowledge imparted to us by the SM in any other question.
So we then return to the point of what this god or these gods want from us, and we see that throughout human history, the one thing all gods have in common in this regards is our belief.
This is the point at which the SM seems to digress from religious views. If god wanted us to believe in it's existence, why not give us some evidence?
Well, consider the nature of belief. It is distinct from knowledge. There is a certain value in belief that knowledge lacks. After all, if a friend of yours is a mechanic who is about to start diagnosing some difficulties with his vehicle, you have knowledge that he will succeed. Your assurances to him that success is imminent is essentially worthless. He knows he can figure out what is wrong with his vehicle. He is a mechanic, and has performed this duty many times before.
But when you have a friend who is not a mechanic, but is forced to diagnose some difficulty with her vehicle on her own, your assurances that she will succeed can have a lasting effect. Knowing you believe in her gives her confidence that she can use to help her expedite the process. It provides a reason not to give up when faced with difficulties. Your belief in her has value to her.
This analogy translates over to the question of the existence of god in a similar form. Sure knowledge in the existence of god does not have any value, while belief in it's existence does.
To illustrate this, consider a world in which the existence of the god of the bible and of Jesus' teachings is a known fact. Every year on the fifth of August, the words "I am the God of the Bible, the father of Jesus, the savior of mankind and I truly exist" appear in glowing letter written across the sky, readable by anyone, regardless of their native language or level of literacy. Scientists have theorizes about subconscious effects, mass hypnosis, plasma dynamics and numerous other phenomenon to explain it, but no natural explanation cuts it.
Archeology and history have shown that the events portrayed in the bible truly happened as they were described. Dinosaur fossils were never found, the oldest rocks date back a mere 6000 years.
As a result of this, the whole world is Christian. Every Sunday the various churches are filled to the brim with people. Every Easter the whole of mankind awakens before dawn to glorify the sacrifice of Jesus.
So when one of us fro the real world questions one of the people from this hypothetical world about their beliefs, the conversation is simple.
"Why do you believe in the teachings of Jesus?"
"Because I know for a fact that they are true."
"Have you ever considered any other religions?"
"All other religions are false, as demonstrated by rigorous scientific investigation, coupled with the teachings of Jesus, which we know to be true."
And most importantly:
"Why don't you commit sins?"
"Because I know I will go to hell if I do."
This hypothetical world seems to be a world of black and white. Homosexuality is wrong, abstinence from sex until marriage is good. But because there is universal acceptance of what is good and what is bad, there is no black. Everything is white.
The advent of complex morality and philosophy never occurred, because there was no dissent. Art is invariably religious in nature. Technology lags far behind our own because there are no wars to spur it's development. All of the world gives charitably to those in need, so there is no hunger, poverty or upper class. As a result of this, there is very little ambition, as great accomplishments net you nothing but local fame (as the lack of warfare inhibited the advent of electronic communications, and the global media).
So what value is left? The production of beautiful artworks happens not to make people happy, but to glorify god. People are good not because they want to be good, but to avoid going to hell. Technology and the sciences are seriously underrated. There is no fortune for the ambitious to aspire to, no fame either. There is no conflict through which we can test ourselves, no difficult trials by which we temper ourselves, no diversity to explore, no differences to resolve. Everyone is the same religion. Everyone has the same social standing (except maybe the clerics). Life is stale, meaningless and pointless in this hypothetical world, and since suicide is a sin, there is no escape.
What if the evidence were not so blatant? What if it were something as subtle as the discovery in the far future that each extraterrestrial sentient species has a religion which corresponds exactly to Christianity? Well, Christianity adherency would explode. Untold billions would convert (remember, these aliens are as shocked to discover this as we are), comparisons would arise between the various versions, eventually congealing into one universal religion. Other religions die out, slowly. The various denominations of Christianity die out, as their tenets are shown to be in conflict with the 'truth'. A few generations pass, and you end up with a galaxy/galactic cluster/universe which resembles the one I described earlier, albeit with better technology.
When the existence of god is knowledge, instead of belief, the nature of mankind and of god shifts from the worthy to the worthless. God is little more than a glorified nerd, playing solitaire on his computer, while mankind is little more than a glorified computer program, mindlessly performing the function that it's user set it to.
But when the existence of god is an unknown and unknowable factor, we see the world we live in. A world of strife and evil, to be sure, but also a world of ambition, accomplishment and victory. A world in which art has value, in which differences can be appreciated as well as being a source of dissent.
And so we arrive back at the initial question. Does god exist?
The answer is the one which works the best for us, and for god. "We don't know."
MjolnirPants
Nice post!!!
I would only disagree with the perceived "value" of belief in a supreme being vs. the belief in a non-mechanics eventual success. The belief in the non-mechanic is based on your judgement of his/her intelligence, etc. His/her perceived value is based on the regard for your judgement. No such evidence is really possible for a god.
Grumpy
Nice post!!!
I would only disagree with the perceived "value" of belief in a supreme being vs. the belief in a non-mechanics eventual success. The belief in the non-mechanic is based on your judgement of his/her intelligence, etc. His/her perceived value is based on the regard for your judgement. No such evidence is really possible for a god.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 10 2008, 12:40 PM)
I would only disagree with the perceived "value" of belief in a supreme being vs. the belief in a non-mechanics eventual success. The belief in the non-mechanic is based on your judgement of his/her intelligence, etc. His/her perceived value is based on the regard for your judgement. No such evidence is really possible for a god.
Grumpy
Well, that's the weakness of an analogy. In the case of a diety, that value comes through the diversity and conflict that the ability to disbelieve produces, combined with the lowered propensity to simply take this belief for granted, whereas in the case of the non-mechanic, that value comes from guesses about the basis for the belief. (In other words, the non-mechanic values your belief because she concludes that there is a good reason for this belief. The diety values your belief because others believe differently, and due to this, you are more likely to strive to meet the demands it places on you with real zeal and fervor, and conflict and diversity arises which can help make you a better person.)
Grumpy
Well, that's the weakness of an analogy. In the case of a diety, that value comes through the diversity and conflict that the ability to disbelieve produces, combined with the lowered propensity to simply take this belief for granted, whereas in the case of the non-mechanic, that value comes from guesses about the basis for the belief. (In other words, the non-mechanic values your belief because she concludes that there is a good reason for this belief. The diety values your belief because others believe differently, and due to this, you are more likely to strive to meet the demands it places on you with real zeal and fervor, and conflict and diversity arises which can help make you a better person.)
Very interesting post, although I do disagree but would like to discuss.
I think it comes down to your hypothetical world. I do disagree with the statement that science and technology will be underrated. I have seen to many people who are both very religious and very curious about the world. Presumably this world would still operate under laws, and God only communicated to the world once a year, so there would still be reason to study how the world works, because god wouldn't have given that information. (or if he did, you didn't specify that).
I do agree that without wars that technology would probably develop slower, but I am not sure if the information god gave to let himself be known would be enough to stop wars.
Hypothetically (you can tell me if this is not what you meant, but unless I missed it, it was not clear) if after some time god made his yearly appearance, after several religions were developed, I could see other religions claiming that this appearance was some kind of hoax, and the Christians who knew for a fact that god existed would have extra zeal and there could be several wars. Of course this is hypothetical, and if its not at all what you meant, is sort of pointless, as you get to set the parameters to your hypothetical world.
As far as I know, this is only an opinion and not any type of verified fact through any studies of human behavior. And I would disagree that social inequality helps with ambition and great accomplishments.
Very interesting though, thanks!
I think it comes down to your hypothetical world. I do disagree with the statement that science and technology will be underrated. I have seen to many people who are both very religious and very curious about the world. Presumably this world would still operate under laws, and God only communicated to the world once a year, so there would still be reason to study how the world works, because god wouldn't have given that information. (or if he did, you didn't specify that).
I do agree that without wars that technology would probably develop slower, but I am not sure if the information god gave to let himself be known would be enough to stop wars.
Hypothetically (you can tell me if this is not what you meant, but unless I missed it, it was not clear) if after some time god made his yearly appearance, after several religions were developed, I could see other religions claiming that this appearance was some kind of hoax, and the Christians who knew for a fact that god existed would have extra zeal and there could be several wars. Of course this is hypothetical, and if its not at all what you meant, is sort of pointless, as you get to set the parameters to your hypothetical world.
QUOTE
All of the world gives charitably to those in need, so there is no hunger, poverty or upper class. As a result of this, there is very little ambition, as great accomplishments net you nothing but local fame
As far as I know, this is only an opinion and not any type of verified fact through any studies of human behavior. And I would disagree that social inequality helps with ambition and great accomplishments.
Very interesting though, thanks!
QUOTE (Steveo+Sep 10 2008, 04:12 PM)
Very interesting post, although I do disagree but would like to discuss.
The world I was describing was one in which every single year since year one, a message for humanity appeared in the skies. That message would obviously have been different before the time of Jesus, but still.
Well, I'm not saying that they would be moot or that no-one would pursue them. There are still driving factors like feeding the hungry and making processes more efficient, in order to have more wealth to give charitably.
That only addresses technology. As for science, I'm sure it would exist (I postulated it's existence in the first paragraph), but the drive to further it would be lessened. We would already know the answer to the 'big questions', so there's no real drive to build a UFT, for instance.
Well, I'm not saying that they would be moot or that no-one would pursue them. There are still driving factors like feeding the hungry and making processes more efficient, in order to have more wealth to give charitably.
That only addresses technology. As for science, I'm sure it would exist (I postulated it's existence in the first paragraph), but the drive to further it would be lessened. We would already know the answer to the 'big questions', so there's no real drive to build a UFT, for instance.
I do agree that without wars that technology would probably develop slower, but I am not sure if the information god gave to let himself be known would be enough to stop wars.
Well, war requires the consent of a large number of people. Not only monarchs (assuming a monarchy, which eliminates most governmental people who would need to consent) but also generals, officers and even soldiers on both sides. Any sizable war like the Amerian civil war or even the war in Vietnam would require the consent of thousands of people, at the bare minimum.
That being said, would you agree to go to war if you knew that making any immoral choices would land you in hell for an eternity?
In fact, what reasons would you have to go to war? The other side holds the same religious beliefs and moral system that you do, one which espouses charity and respect, so there's no reasons for war. With no justifiable reasons, any act of war would be highly immoral, and land the offender in hell for all of eternity.
Keep in mind, this hypothetical world is vastly different from our own: People don't believe in the afterlife, they know it exists. Even if someone harmed you, would you try to get even with them, knowing that they will pay for their crimes regardless of what you do, and that getting even only jeapordizes your own soul?
As I said, that's not quite what I meant in the hypothetical world, although it is a valid point in the second scenario I mentioned (wherein it is discovered that God exists through the prevelance of christianity throughout the galaxy/universe).
I could easily see such a war happening. In that scenario, however, all of science and morality would be on one side, while the other side has only a mistaken conviction. The Christians would gain converts with almost every captured enemy (remember, they would all compose themselves according to Christian mores, as they now know without doubt that they will be judged for their actions). They would gain converts from the civilian population, too. The other side would see desertion and internal strife, resulting from the suppression of the evidence that would be needed in order to maintain coherency.
This would be a period of great diversity and strife, however when you fast forward just a few generations, the galaxy or universe suddenly resembles the hypothetical world I first described.
As I said, that's not quite what I meant in the hypothetical world, although it is a valid point in the second scenario I mentioned (wherein it is discovered that God exists through the prevelance of christianity throughout the galaxy/universe).
I could easily see such a war happening. In that scenario, however, all of science and morality would be on one side, while the other side has only a mistaken conviction. The Christians would gain converts with almost every captured enemy (remember, they would all compose themselves according to Christian mores, as they now know without doubt that they will be judged for their actions). They would gain converts from the civilian population, too. The other side would see desertion and internal strife, resulting from the suppression of the evidence that would be needed in order to maintain coherency.
This would be a period of great diversity and strife, however when you fast forward just a few generations, the galaxy or universe suddenly resembles the hypothetical world I first described.
Of course this is hypothetical, and if its not at all what you meant, is sort of pointless, as you get to set the parameters to your hypothetical world.
Well, that's true, but if there are aspects of this world which I haven't thought of, I'd like to hear about them.
Of course, as is my opinion. We have no way to know for a fact that the hypothetical world would behave as I described, but we do have logical indications that it would.
Of course, as is my opinion. We have no way to know for a fact that the hypothetical world would behave as I described, but we do have logical indications that it would.
And I would disagree that social inequality helps with ambition and great accomplishments.
Do you think that the poor do not dream of wealth? Do you think that those dreams do not inspire them?
While I would agree that social inequality isn't the sole cause of ambition, I cannot accept that it is not a major contributing factor, unless some new information is presented to me.
My pleasure!
Despite the opinions of some people here, I enjoy discussion philosophy and metaphysical subjects, so long as they are not considered to be actual science. By all means, feel free to disagree with anything else I've said here, as a healthy debate never hurt a healthy theory.
The world I was describing was one in which every single year since year one, a message for humanity appeared in the skies. That message would obviously have been different before the time of Jesus, but still.
QUOTE
I do disagree with the statement that science and technology will be underrated. I have seen to many people who are both very religious and very curious about the world. Presumably this world would still operate under laws, and God only communicated to the world once a year, so there would still be reason to study how the world works, because god wouldn't have given that information. (or if he did, you didn't specify that).
Well, I'm not saying that they would be moot or that no-one would pursue them. There are still driving factors like feeding the hungry and making processes more efficient, in order to have more wealth to give charitably.
That only addresses technology. As for science, I'm sure it would exist (I postulated it's existence in the first paragraph), but the drive to further it would be lessened. We would already know the answer to the 'big questions', so there's no real drive to build a UFT, for instance.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I do disagree with the statement that science and technology will be underrated. I have seen to many people who are both very religious and very curious about the world. Presumably this world would still operate under laws, and God only communicated to the world once a year, so there would still be reason to study how the world works, because god wouldn't have given that information. (or if he did, you didn't specify that). |
Well, I'm not saying that they would be moot or that no-one would pursue them. There are still driving factors like feeding the hungry and making processes more efficient, in order to have more wealth to give charitably.
That only addresses technology. As for science, I'm sure it would exist (I postulated it's existence in the first paragraph), but the drive to further it would be lessened. We would already know the answer to the 'big questions', so there's no real drive to build a UFT, for instance.
I do agree that without wars that technology would probably develop slower, but I am not sure if the information god gave to let himself be known would be enough to stop wars.
Well, war requires the consent of a large number of people. Not only monarchs (assuming a monarchy, which eliminates most governmental people who would need to consent) but also generals, officers and even soldiers on both sides. Any sizable war like the Amerian civil war or even the war in Vietnam would require the consent of thousands of people, at the bare minimum.
That being said, would you agree to go to war if you knew that making any immoral choices would land you in hell for an eternity?
In fact, what reasons would you have to go to war? The other side holds the same religious beliefs and moral system that you do, one which espouses charity and respect, so there's no reasons for war. With no justifiable reasons, any act of war would be highly immoral, and land the offender in hell for all of eternity.
Keep in mind, this hypothetical world is vastly different from our own: People don't believe in the afterlife, they know it exists. Even if someone harmed you, would you try to get even with them, knowing that they will pay for their crimes regardless of what you do, and that getting even only jeapordizes your own soul?
QUOTE
Hypothetically (you can tell me if this is not what you meant, but unless I missed it, it was not clear) if after some time god made his yearly appearance, after several religions were developed, I could see other religions claiming that this appearance was some kind of hoax, and the Christians who knew for a fact that god existed would have extra zeal and there could be several wars.
As I said, that's not quite what I meant in the hypothetical world, although it is a valid point in the second scenario I mentioned (wherein it is discovered that God exists through the prevelance of christianity throughout the galaxy/universe).
I could easily see such a war happening. In that scenario, however, all of science and morality would be on one side, while the other side has only a mistaken conviction. The Christians would gain converts with almost every captured enemy (remember, they would all compose themselves according to Christian mores, as they now know without doubt that they will be judged for their actions). They would gain converts from the civilian population, too. The other side would see desertion and internal strife, resulting from the suppression of the evidence that would be needed in order to maintain coherency.
This would be a period of great diversity and strife, however when you fast forward just a few generations, the galaxy or universe suddenly resembles the hypothetical world I first described.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hypothetically (you can tell me if this is not what you meant, but unless I missed it, it was not clear) if after some time god made his yearly appearance, after several religions were developed, I could see other religions claiming that this appearance was some kind of hoax, and the Christians who knew for a fact that god existed would have extra zeal and there could be several wars. |
As I said, that's not quite what I meant in the hypothetical world, although it is a valid point in the second scenario I mentioned (wherein it is discovered that God exists through the prevelance of christianity throughout the galaxy/universe).
I could easily see such a war happening. In that scenario, however, all of science and morality would be on one side, while the other side has only a mistaken conviction. The Christians would gain converts with almost every captured enemy (remember, they would all compose themselves according to Christian mores, as they now know without doubt that they will be judged for their actions). They would gain converts from the civilian population, too. The other side would see desertion and internal strife, resulting from the suppression of the evidence that would be needed in order to maintain coherency.
This would be a period of great diversity and strife, however when you fast forward just a few generations, the galaxy or universe suddenly resembles the hypothetical world I first described.
Of course this is hypothetical, and if its not at all what you meant, is sort of pointless, as you get to set the parameters to your hypothetical world.
Well, that's true, but if there are aspects of this world which I haven't thought of, I'd like to hear about them.
QUOTE
As far as I know, this is only an opinion and not any type of verified fact through any studies of human behavior.
Of course, as is my opinion. We have no way to know for a fact that the hypothetical world would behave as I described, but we do have logical indications that it would.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As far as I know, this is only an opinion and not any type of verified fact through any studies of human behavior. |
Of course, as is my opinion. We have no way to know for a fact that the hypothetical world would behave as I described, but we do have logical indications that it would.
And I would disagree that social inequality helps with ambition and great accomplishments.
Do you think that the poor do not dream of wealth? Do you think that those dreams do not inspire them?
While I would agree that social inequality isn't the sole cause of ambition, I cannot accept that it is not a major contributing factor, unless some new information is presented to me.
QUOTE
Very interesting though, thanks!
My pleasure!
Despite the opinions of some people here, I enjoy discussion philosophy and metaphysical subjects, so long as they are not considered to be actual science. By all means, feel free to disagree with anything else I've said here, as a healthy debate never hurt a healthy theory.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Do you think that the poor do not dream of wealth? Do you think that those dreams do not inspire them?
While I would agree that social inequality isn't the sole cause of ambition, I cannot accept that it is not a major contributing factor, unless some new information is presented to me.
I know they dream of wealth, and maybe inspires them, but I would suggest more than anything their lack of wealth and connections and education discourages them.
Social Mobility from the poor upwards is not great.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Mobility
I am certainly no expert, and I also wouldn't be surprised if there were other major factors, but people who are born into poverty are likely to remain in poverty. The "American Dream" is just that, a dream. The number of people who go from rags to riches is very very small. But there are enough stories around so that people who have wealth think if one person did it, all the poor should and should quit complaining about being poor. Ok, that last sentence is just my cynical rant.
While I would agree that social inequality isn't the sole cause of ambition, I cannot accept that it is not a major contributing factor, unless some new information is presented to me.
I know they dream of wealth, and maybe inspires them, but I would suggest more than anything their lack of wealth and connections and education discourages them.
Social Mobility from the poor upwards is not great.
QUOTE
Sociologists Blau and Duncan collected mobility data along with the U.S. Bureau of the Census in 1962. The data included information on occupational family backgrounds. In 1962, 56.8% of son's with fathers who had occupations in upper nonmanual ended up with occupations in the same level. Only 1.2% of sons with fathers who had farming occupations ended up in upper nonmanual occupations. In 1973, these differences increased. 59.4% of sons with fathers in upper nonmanual occupations achieved occupations of this same level and .9% of sons with fathers in farming occupations ended up in upper nonmanual occupations. However, the occupational structure is more rigid towards the top and bottom. Those in lower nonmanual occupations, and upper and lower manual occupations were more likely to be vertically mobile. Upper nonmanual occupations have the highest level of occupational inheritance. Kerbo, Harold (1996). Social Stratification and Inequality Edition= 3rd. The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc., 331,332.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Mobility
I am certainly no expert, and I also wouldn't be surprised if there were other major factors, but people who are born into poverty are likely to remain in poverty. The "American Dream" is just that, a dream. The number of people who go from rags to riches is very very small. But there are enough stories around so that people who have wealth think if one person did it, all the poor should and should quit complaining about being poor. Ok, that last sentence is just my cynical rant.
QUOTE (Steveo+Sep 10 2008, 06:54 PM)
I am certainly no expert, and I also wouldn't be surprised if there were other major factors, but people who are born into poverty are likely to remain in poverty. The "American Dream" is just that, a dream. The number of people who go from rags to riches is very very small. But there are enough stories around so that people who have wealth think if one person did it, all the poor should and should quit complaining about being poor. Ok, that last sentence is just my cynical rant.
I agree that the economic level a person is born at is the single most important factor in determining what econimic level they will reach, however, this doesn't pertain to ambition itself, which is the desire to achieve more, not success at that.
The article you cited criticizes the idea of meritocracy, not the idea of commonplace upwards social mobility. Although the two are certainly linked, it is an important distinction. It focused on working class, and showed that hard work and dedication to your career as a (insert blue-collar manual-labor job title here) will not move you up the economic ladder. I agree with this. I've criticized meritocracy myself a few times.
Here's a link directly pertaining to the subject:
http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdf...%20Findings.pdf
Other notable figures are (sorry for not quoting, but the format editing I had to do for that last one was wicked):
34% of americans are upwardly mobile (having a higher standard of living than their parents) while 27% are maintaining their parent's standard of living.
42% of american men born into the poorest fifth of society remains there. The remaining 58% thus by definition, climb the economic ladder.
I agree that the economic level a person is born at is the single most important factor in determining what econimic level they will reach, however, this doesn't pertain to ambition itself, which is the desire to achieve more, not success at that.
The article you cited criticizes the idea of meritocracy, not the idea of commonplace upwards social mobility. Although the two are certainly linked, it is an important distinction. It focused on working class, and showed that hard work and dedication to your career as a (insert blue-collar manual-labor job title here) will not move you up the economic ladder. I agree with this. I've criticized meritocracy myself a few times.
Here's a link directly pertaining to the subject:
http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdf...%20Findings.pdf
QUOTE
Two out of three Americans have higher incomes than their parents, while one-third are falling behind.
*The current generation of adults is better off than the previous one, because of real income growth, but their incomes are more unevenly distributed. („Across Generations’ Figure 1)
*Compared to their parents, they also live in families that are smaller and where there is more often a second earner. Women's incomes have grown while men's have stagnated. („Men & Women’ Figures 1, 2 &3)
*The current generation of adults is better off than the previous one, because of real income growth, but their incomes are more unevenly distributed. („Across Generations’ Figure 1)
*Compared to their parents, they also live in families that are smaller and where there is more often a second earner. Women's incomes have grown while men's have stagnated. („Men & Women’ Figures 1, 2 &3)
Other notable figures are (sorry for not quoting, but the format editing I had to do for that last one was wicked):
34% of americans are upwardly mobile (having a higher standard of living than their parents) while 27% are maintaining their parent's standard of living.
42% of american men born into the poorest fifth of society remains there. The remaining 58% thus by definition, climb the economic ladder.
QUOTE (Steveo+Sep 10 2008, 11:54 AM)
But there are enough stories around so that people who have wealth think if one person did it, all the poor should and should quit complaining about being poor. Ok, that last sentence is just my cynical rant.
Actually Steveo, I'm pretty sure that that last sentence was originally my cynical rant.
Actually Steveo, I'm pretty sure that that last sentence was originally my cynical rant.
Yeah, sorry, me complaining about that type of rant was my rant.....maybe I didn't make that clear enough! haha
QUOTE (Steveo+Sep 11 2008, 04:00 PM)
Yeah, sorry, me complaining about that type of rant was my rant.....maybe I didn't make that clear enough! haha
I live in an area which has some of the richest people in the world in it, and I can assure you that that additude is an accurate representation of the outlook many rich people take towards the poor. In my experience, it's most prevelant among the newly-rich, who came from middle or lower-class families, but made fortunes as adults. They seem to think that luck, economic conditions, the help and support of others and a fortunate genetic lineage had nothing to do with their fortunes, and it was all their hard work and dedication. Unfortunately, meritocracy is simply not true. Starting a business which will grow in your lifetime to a fortune 500 company or at least make you a few million is something that hard work and dedication alone won't accomplish. You have to start it at the right time, you have to qualify for loans (which involves arbitration, most of the time, meaning your credit score isn't the only factor involved), you have to hire good and honest employees, you need a fair amount of luck to avoid many pitfals and offer up many advantages, and you have to have a talent for growing your business. Not everyone gets those things, no matter how hardworking or dedicated they are.
I live in an area which has some of the richest people in the world in it, and I can assure you that that additude is an accurate representation of the outlook many rich people take towards the poor. In my experience, it's most prevelant among the newly-rich, who came from middle or lower-class families, but made fortunes as adults. They seem to think that luck, economic conditions, the help and support of others and a fortunate genetic lineage had nothing to do with their fortunes, and it was all their hard work and dedication. Unfortunately, meritocracy is simply not true. Starting a business which will grow in your lifetime to a fortune 500 company or at least make you a few million is something that hard work and dedication alone won't accomplish. You have to start it at the right time, you have to qualify for loans (which involves arbitration, most of the time, meaning your credit score isn't the only factor involved), you have to hire good and honest employees, you need a fair amount of luck to avoid many pitfals and offer up many advantages, and you have to have a talent for growing your business. Not everyone gets those things, no matter how hardworking or dedicated they are.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
I live in an area which has some of the richest people in the world in it, and I can assure you that that additude is an accurate representation of the outlook many rich people take towards the poor. In my experience, it's most prevelant among the newly-rich, who came from middle or lower-class families, but made fortunes as adults. They seem to think that luck, economic conditions, the help and support of others and a fortunate genetic lineage had nothing to do with their fortunes, and it was all their hard work and dedication. Unfortunately, meritocracy is simply not true. Starting a business which will grow in your lifetime to a fortune 500 company or at least make you a few million is something that hard work and dedication alone won't accomplish. You have to start it at the right time, you have to qualify for loans (which involves arbitration, most of the time, meaning your credit score isn't the only factor involved), you have to hire good and honest employees, you need a fair amount of luck to avoid many pitfals and offer up many advantages, and you have to have a talent for growing your business. Not everyone gets those things, no matter how hardworking or dedicated they are.
I know its pretty accurate when it comes to the rich (or at least a large fraction of them), but sadly its also pretty common in the middle/lower middle class (at least where I am from) when it comes to the poor.
I am in no way on a path to be very rich, but I am on a path to be much better off than my parents. I am reasonably intelligent, I have worked fairly hard and I am on a good path. But I have still been very lucky during my career to get where I am at this point. So many people seem to forget about the good fortune they have had in success. Its a shame that so many people can't even be honest with themselves.
I had other things I wanted to discuss from earlier, but I will try and get back to them later (either this afternoon, or sometime on the weekend), as I have a meeting in a few minutes.
I know its pretty accurate when it comes to the rich (or at least a large fraction of them), but sadly its also pretty common in the middle/lower middle class (at least where I am from) when it comes to the poor.
I am in no way on a path to be very rich, but I am on a path to be much better off than my parents. I am reasonably intelligent, I have worked fairly hard and I am on a good path. But I have still been very lucky during my career to get where I am at this point. So many people seem to forget about the good fortune they have had in success. Its a shame that so many people can't even be honest with themselves.
I had other things I wanted to discuss from earlier, but I will try and get back to them later (either this afternoon, or sometime on the weekend), as I have a meeting in a few minutes.
Hi MjolnirPants,
Thanks for the link! Interesting post.
I absolutely agree with you in regard to probability and Occam's Razor, that is one of the main reasons I remain an Atheist. (imo) If you ask any honest thinking person whether or not Fairies exist, the correct answer ought to be 'What is a Fairy? or 'Probably not' or 'I don't know' as opposed to 'No', perhaps followed by an appeal for evidence to qualify the question. Otherwise it's a question based on ...?
There is little difference between asking the question "Do Fairies exist?" and "Does God's' exist?", Unless we firstly clarify what it is we are discussing.
So with that in mind would you be willing to clarify what exactly is the 'God' or 'Gods' that you believe to exist?
If you are willing to answer the above question,
I will attempt to address the rest of the points raised once I have more information.
Kind Regards
Thanks for the link! Interesting post.
QUOTE
Wikipedia - Occam's Razor
Occam's razor is a powerful tool in the hands of scientists. It allows them to give varying levels of probability to competing theories, and keeps modern science from being overwhelmed by complex, superfluous and redundant mechanisms.
When applied to the question of whether or not there exists a god or gods, it often yields a simple answer in the minds of the scientist asking the question: No.
However, this answer is not truly in keeping with the principles of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism (I will refer to it as the scientific method, or SM from now on), when applied properly to any problems dictates clearly that there is no black/white distinction. There are no "Yes" or "No" answers in science, there are only "Highly probable" and "Highly improbable" answers. Even when faced with such seemingly straightforward questions as "Will an electron and a positron annihilate when collided?" the most accurate answer given is "It is highly probable", because it is impossible to determine if every single such collision will result in the annihilation of both particles. We cannot observe every such collision.
Occam's razor is a powerful tool in the hands of scientists. It allows them to give varying levels of probability to competing theories, and keeps modern science from being overwhelmed by complex, superfluous and redundant mechanisms.
When applied to the question of whether or not there exists a god or gods, it often yields a simple answer in the minds of the scientist asking the question: No.
However, this answer is not truly in keeping with the principles of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism (I will refer to it as the scientific method, or SM from now on), when applied properly to any problems dictates clearly that there is no black/white distinction. There are no "Yes" or "No" answers in science, there are only "Highly probable" and "Highly improbable" answers. Even when faced with such seemingly straightforward questions as "Will an electron and a positron annihilate when collided?" the most accurate answer given is "It is highly probable", because it is impossible to determine if every single such collision will result in the annihilation of both particles. We cannot observe every such collision.
I absolutely agree with you in regard to probability and Occam's Razor, that is one of the main reasons I remain an Atheist. (imo) If you ask any honest thinking person whether or not Fairies exist, the correct answer ought to be 'What is a Fairy? or 'Probably not' or 'I don't know' as opposed to 'No', perhaps followed by an appeal for evidence to qualify the question. Otherwise it's a question based on ...?
There is little difference between asking the question "Do Fairies exist?" and "Does God's' exist?", Unless we firstly clarify what it is we are discussing.
So with that in mind would you be willing to clarify what exactly is the 'God' or 'Gods' that you believe to exist?
If you are willing to answer the above question,
I will attempt to address the rest of the points raised once I have more information.
Kind Regards
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Sep 17 2008, 06:53 PM)
Hi MjolnirPants,
I absolutely agree with you in regard to probability and Occam's Razor, that is one of the main reasons I remain an Atheist. (imo)
I tend to lean towards atheist philosophies, and atheist views on a number of positions. For instance, I don't think God has anything to do with physical reality, and if someone were to ask me to describe the universe, I wouldn't even mention God.
That's a view I wish more scientists would take. Take Dawkins for instance. He insists that there is no God because there is no evidence of any godly mechanism. Well, there is no evidence of any mechanism to quantum entanglement, either. It's been observed, but never explained. Does this mean it doesn't exist?
That's a view I wish more scientists would take. Take Dawkins for instance. He insists that there is no God because there is no evidence of any godly mechanism. Well, there is no evidence of any mechanism to quantum entanglement, either. It's been observed, but never explained. Does this mean it doesn't exist?
So with that in mind would you be willing to clarify what exactly is the 'God' or 'Gods' that you believe to exist?
Absolutely. The God I believe in is a sort of emergent intelligence of the universe. It's the difference between the imagination and consciousness of humans and animals and the mathematical prowess of computers. It's the muse which inspired early man to paint geometric designs on cave walls, and modern mathematicians to find such beauty in the logic and numbers of their trade. It's poetry and art. It's the cosmic player rolling the dice of quantum mechanical randomness.
If any afterlife exists (I know you didn't ask about this, but since the two concepts are closely related, as is the concept of a soul, I will answer anyways) I think it takes the form of enlightenment, as described in buddhist traditions. A form of merger between the intangible conciousness of the human mind and the intangible intelligence of the universe I previously described. If a soul exists, it is an emergent property of the human brain, which is more commonly referred to as "consciousness."
I choose to believe in all three concepts because it makes me feel better about my place in the universe. Also, because it provides a framework for models of individuality and consciousness without limiting those concepts to mere illusions. I fully accept that they are emergent properties, like heat is an emergent property of vibration, and the design of a web page is an emergent property of the electricity used to create, store and display it, but I cannot accept that all emergent properties are simply illusions. Heat still burns, a web page design can still be seen and appreciated.
I agree with not liking Dawkin's stance, but I don't like your analogy at all. Quantum Entanglement has been explained. In the case of a two particle system it simply comes from the fact that the state is not a product state, but a linear superposition of product states.
And if you look historically the case against entanglement was made before it was observed experimentally because the consequences of having a linear superposition of states didn't make sense. But, the explanation has held experimentally, AND a test was devised (by Bell - Bells inequality) to test if a local hidden variable theory existed. And the results of this experiment show it does not. As far as I know, entanglement is pretty well explained, unless you are refering to a more philosophical explanation, which is lacking, or that in a similar way as people say they don't understand QM, even though people can do calculations, and make predictions, etc....
Well I obviously agree with this
other than to say if (pedantically) that we Humans are logically part of this Universe as well so any full description of this Universe must contain everything, including beliefs, thoughts, well, you know everything.
Well I obviously agree with this other than to say if (pedantically) that we Humans are logically part of this Universe as well so any full description of this Universe must contain everything, including beliefs, thoughts, well, you know everything.
That's a view I wish more scientists would take. Take Dawkins for instance. He insists that there is no God because there is no evidence of any godly mechanism. Well, there is no evidence of any mechanism to quantum entanglement, either. It's been observed, but never explained. Does this mean it doesn't exist?
Maybe Dawkins has insisted that there is no God, but I've only ever read or actually heard him say that he does not 'believe' that any God's' exist because there is no evidence. In fact in the 'God delusion' he creates an Atheist, Agnostic, Theist scale of belief (if I recall correctly) ranging from '+7' (God definitely exists) to '0' (God definitely does not exist) or something like that, with Agnosticism being somewhere in the middle. On this scale Dawkins would consider himself around a '1' . There is even a chapter called 'Why God 'almost' certainly does not exist'.
Great description!! I have similar views to this except that I don't call whatever is responsible for any of the phenomena you have listed as God at this stage of Human understanding. It does sound like a 'God of the gaps' view If a very abstract, obscure, interesting and yet somewhat slender gap But a gap nonetheless.
The emergent intelligence you refer to is an interesting proposition. Do you believe that this emergent consciousness is outside of our own consciousness?, by 'our own' I'm including life on Earth and any other forms of life that may exist out there.
I personally see it that life was a statistical possibility but probably highly improbable, unless there existed somewhere, anywhere that it could possibly occur. In order for it to become more probable, sufficient Space and Time (well everything that did occur or was existent) needed to happen somewhere at sometime in order for it to occur just the way it did
My head is spinning now.
However if it hadn't occurred just so, then specifically we wouldn't be here to ask the question.
The problem I have with the question of whether or not any 'God' or 'Gods' exist is that it leads to a description of something that is logically unknown.
By virtue of the answer being unknown, it's not a great question. (imo) A better question would be to search for an explanation for the various phenomena that you currently attribute to or call 'God'. This is similar to what caused many to invoke 'Gods' in the first place. I mean how would you explain a mechanism like Natural Selection in detail to Stone-age man? (Or a Mister Belfry
)
If Humanity can survive and continue Scientific discovery then I believe it is possible that future Human beings might be having a similar discussion about phenomena that is unknown to them, whilst perhaps having a much better understanding of the mechanisms for the phenomena detailed in your description.
I personally think that a better description of God would be that it is everything although an even better description is that the Universe is everything. I am running with the latter at present.
Kind regards!
I absolutely agree with you in regard to probability and Occam's Razor, that is one of the main reasons I remain an Atheist. (imo)
I tend to lean towards atheist philosophies, and atheist views on a number of positions. For instance, I don't think God has anything to do with physical reality, and if someone were to ask me to describe the universe, I wouldn't even mention God.
QUOTE
If you ask any honest thinking person whether or not Fairies exist, the correct answer ought to be 'What is a Fairy? or 'Probably not' or 'I don't know' as opposed to 'No', perhaps followed by an appeal for evidence to qualify the question. Otherwise it's a question based on ...?
That's a view I wish more scientists would take. Take Dawkins for instance. He insists that there is no God because there is no evidence of any godly mechanism. Well, there is no evidence of any mechanism to quantum entanglement, either. It's been observed, but never explained. Does this mean it doesn't exist?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you ask any honest thinking person whether or not Fairies exist, the correct answer ought to be 'What is a Fairy? or 'Probably not' or 'I don't know' as opposed to 'No', perhaps followed by an appeal for evidence to qualify the question. Otherwise it's a question based on ...? |
That's a view I wish more scientists would take. Take Dawkins for instance. He insists that there is no God because there is no evidence of any godly mechanism. Well, there is no evidence of any mechanism to quantum entanglement, either. It's been observed, but never explained. Does this mean it doesn't exist?
So with that in mind would you be willing to clarify what exactly is the 'God' or 'Gods' that you believe to exist?
Absolutely. The God I believe in is a sort of emergent intelligence of the universe. It's the difference between the imagination and consciousness of humans and animals and the mathematical prowess of computers. It's the muse which inspired early man to paint geometric designs on cave walls, and modern mathematicians to find such beauty in the logic and numbers of their trade. It's poetry and art. It's the cosmic player rolling the dice of quantum mechanical randomness.
If any afterlife exists (I know you didn't ask about this, but since the two concepts are closely related, as is the concept of a soul, I will answer anyways) I think it takes the form of enlightenment, as described in buddhist traditions. A form of merger between the intangible conciousness of the human mind and the intangible intelligence of the universe I previously described. If a soul exists, it is an emergent property of the human brain, which is more commonly referred to as "consciousness."
I choose to believe in all three concepts because it makes me feel better about my place in the universe. Also, because it provides a framework for models of individuality and consciousness without limiting those concepts to mere illusions. I fully accept that they are emergent properties, like heat is an emergent property of vibration, and the design of a web page is an emergent property of the electricity used to create, store and display it, but I cannot accept that all emergent properties are simply illusions. Heat still burns, a web page design can still be seen and appreciated.
QUOTE
That's a view I wish more scientists would take. Take Dawkins for instance. He insists that there is no God because there is no evidence of any godly mechanism. Well, there is no evidence of any mechanism to quantum entanglement, either. It's been observed, but never explained. Does this mean it doesn't exist?
I agree with not liking Dawkin's stance, but I don't like your analogy at all. Quantum Entanglement has been explained. In the case of a two particle system it simply comes from the fact that the state is not a product state, but a linear superposition of product states.
And if you look historically the case against entanglement was made before it was observed experimentally because the consequences of having a linear superposition of states didn't make sense. But, the explanation has held experimentally, AND a test was devised (by Bell - Bells inequality) to test if a local hidden variable theory existed. And the results of this experiment show it does not. As far as I know, entanglement is pretty well explained, unless you are refering to a more philosophical explanation, which is lacking, or that in a similar way as people say they don't understand QM, even though people can do calculations, and make predictions, etc....
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 17 2008, 07:13 PM)
QUOTE
I tend to lean towards atheist philosophies, and atheist views on a number of positions. For instance, I don't think God has anything to do with physical reality, and if someone were to ask me to describe the universe, I wouldn't even mention God.
Well I obviously agree with this
other than to say if (pedantically) that we Humans are logically part of this Universe as well so any full description of this Universe must contain everything, including beliefs, thoughts, well, you know everything.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I tend to lean towards atheist philosophies, and atheist views on a number of positions. For instance, I don't think God has anything to do with physical reality, and if someone were to ask me to describe the universe, I wouldn't even mention God. |
Well I obviously agree with this
other than to say if (pedantically) that we Humans are logically part of this Universe as well so any full description of this Universe must contain everything, including beliefs, thoughts, well, you know everything.That's a view I wish more scientists would take. Take Dawkins for instance. He insists that there is no God because there is no evidence of any godly mechanism. Well, there is no evidence of any mechanism to quantum entanglement, either. It's been observed, but never explained. Does this mean it doesn't exist?
Maybe Dawkins has insisted that there is no God, but I've only ever read or actually heard him say that he does not 'believe' that any God's' exist because there is no evidence. In fact in the 'God delusion' he creates an Atheist, Agnostic, Theist scale of belief (if I recall correctly) ranging from '+7' (God definitely exists) to '0' (God definitely does not exist) or something like that, with Agnosticism being somewhere in the middle. On this scale Dawkins would consider himself around a '1' . There is even a chapter called 'Why God 'almost' certainly does not exist'.
QUOTE
Absolutely. The God I believe in is a sort of emergent intelligence of the universe. It's the difference between the imagination and consciousness of humans and animals and the mathematical prowess of computers. It's the muse which inspired early man to paint geometric designs on cave walls, and modern mathematicians to find such beauty in the logic and numbers of their trade. It's poetry and art. It's the cosmic player rolling the dice of quantum mechanical randomness.
If any afterlife exists (I know you didn't ask about this, but since the two concepts are closely related, as is the concept of a soul, I will answer anyways) I think it takes the form of enlightenment, as described in buddhist traditions. A form of merger between the intangible conciousness of the human mind and the intangible intelligence of the universe I previously described. If a soul exists, it is an emergent property of the human brain, which is more commonly referred to as "consciousness."
I choose to believe in all three concepts because it makes me feel better about my place in the universe. Also, because it provides a framework for models of individuality and consciousness without limiting those concepts to mere illusions. I fully accept that they are emergent properties, like heat is an emergent property of vibration, and the design of a web page is an emergent property of the electricity used to create, store and display it, but I cannot accept that all emergent properties are simply illusions. Heat still burns, a web page design can still be seen and appreciated.
If any afterlife exists (I know you didn't ask about this, but since the two concepts are closely related, as is the concept of a soul, I will answer anyways) I think it takes the form of enlightenment, as described in buddhist traditions. A form of merger between the intangible conciousness of the human mind and the intangible intelligence of the universe I previously described. If a soul exists, it is an emergent property of the human brain, which is more commonly referred to as "consciousness."
I choose to believe in all three concepts because it makes me feel better about my place in the universe. Also, because it provides a framework for models of individuality and consciousness without limiting those concepts to mere illusions. I fully accept that they are emergent properties, like heat is an emergent property of vibration, and the design of a web page is an emergent property of the electricity used to create, store and display it, but I cannot accept that all emergent properties are simply illusions. Heat still burns, a web page design can still be seen and appreciated.
Great description!! I have similar views to this except that I don't call whatever is responsible for any of the phenomena you have listed as God at this stage of Human understanding. It does sound like a 'God of the gaps' view If a very abstract, obscure, interesting and yet somewhat slender gap But a gap nonetheless.
The emergent intelligence you refer to is an interesting proposition. Do you believe that this emergent consciousness is outside of our own consciousness?, by 'our own' I'm including life on Earth and any other forms of life that may exist out there.
I personally see it that life was a statistical possibility but probably highly improbable, unless there existed somewhere, anywhere that it could possibly occur. In order for it to become more probable, sufficient Space and Time (well everything that did occur or was existent) needed to happen somewhere at sometime in order for it to occur just the way it did
My head is spinning now.However if it hadn't occurred just so, then specifically we wouldn't be here to ask the question.
The problem I have with the question of whether or not any 'God' or 'Gods' exist is that it leads to a description of something that is logically unknown.
By virtue of the answer being unknown, it's not a great question. (imo) A better question would be to search for an explanation for the various phenomena that you currently attribute to or call 'God'. This is similar to what caused many to invoke 'Gods' in the first place. I mean how would you explain a mechanism like Natural Selection in detail to Stone-age man? (Or a Mister Belfry
) If Humanity can survive and continue Scientific discovery then I believe it is possible that future Human beings might be having a similar discussion about phenomena that is unknown to them, whilst perhaps having a much better understanding of the mechanisms for the phenomena detailed in your description.
I personally think that a better description of God would be that it is everything although an even better description is that the Universe is everything. I am running with the latter at present.
Kind regards!
QUOTE (Steveo+Sep 17 2008, 08:26 PM)
I agree with not liking Dawkin's stance, but I don't like your analogy at all.
...
As far as I know, entanglement is pretty well explained, unless you are refering to a more philosophical explanation, which is lacking, or that in a similar way as people say they don't understand QM, even though people can do calculations, and make predictions, etc....
I am reffering to a more philosophical explaination... For instance: We have an explaination for gravity in the form of the curvature of space, or through the exchange of gravitons.
But we don't have a mechanism to model how two particles become entangled. We can describe it the way we describe a wave function, but we cannot say that we know why they are entangled, any more than we know why particles have wave functions. In the case of the wave function, we can attribute that to a fundamental property of particles. But since not all particles are entangled, and un-entangled particles can become entangled, entanglement cannot be described as a fundamental property of particles, meaning there is some mechanism which we do not yet understand which mediates entanglement. Perhaps it is a fifth fundamental force, or far far more likely, it is a more mundane property of the precise way in which particles behave, which will become apparent to us once we have a 'final' (or even 'next-generation' or 'Nth-generation') model of particle physics.
I understand where you're coming from; we have an accurate, predictive and powerful model of entanglement. I was speaking in philosophical terms, and when discussion the philosophy of science, it's sometimes confusing when I'm not going out on a limb to make myself clear...
...
As far as I know, entanglement is pretty well explained, unless you are refering to a more philosophical explanation, which is lacking, or that in a similar way as people say they don't understand QM, even though people can do calculations, and make predictions, etc....
I am reffering to a more philosophical explaination... For instance: We have an explaination for gravity in the form of the curvature of space, or through the exchange of gravitons.
But we don't have a mechanism to model how two particles become entangled. We can describe it the way we describe a wave function, but we cannot say that we know why they are entangled, any more than we know why particles have wave functions. In the case of the wave function, we can attribute that to a fundamental property of particles. But since not all particles are entangled, and un-entangled particles can become entangled, entanglement cannot be described as a fundamental property of particles, meaning there is some mechanism which we do not yet understand which mediates entanglement. Perhaps it is a fifth fundamental force, or far far more likely, it is a more mundane property of the precise way in which particles behave, which will become apparent to us once we have a 'final' (or even 'next-generation' or 'Nth-generation') model of particle physics.
I understand where you're coming from; we have an accurate, predictive and powerful model of entanglement. I was speaking in philosophical terms, and when discussion the philosophy of science, it's sometimes confusing when I'm not going out on a limb to make myself clear...
Understood. Halfway through my post I clued in that maybe you meant in a more philosophical way, so I figured I should end with that.
Your last post, as well as Sinister Utopia's last post made me think of another philosophical question.
Do you think there is a "Theory of Everything", or are we just doomed to achieve better and better approximations of how the universe behaves, but never a true exact theory.
I think we are doomed to only achieve better approximations, but I think even if we had a "Theory of everything" we would never actually know.
Your last post, as well as Sinister Utopia's last post made me think of another philosophical question.
Do you think there is a "Theory of Everything", or are we just doomed to achieve better and better approximations of how the universe behaves, but never a true exact theory.
I think we are doomed to only achieve better approximations, but I think even if we had a "Theory of everything" we would never actually know.
QUOTE (Steveo+Sep 17 2008, 10:40 PM)
Do you think there is a "Theory of Everything", or are we just doomed to achieve better and better approximations of how the universe behaves, but never a true exact theory.
I think we are doomed to only achieve better approximations, but I think even if we had a "Theory of everything" we would never actually know.
I think we're doomed.
I don't think that the way the universe works will fit into our little theories and postulates as neatly as we'd like it to, but I also think that our little theories and postulates are some powerful, powerful things already, with much more power waiting to be unlocked.
I've another such question for you in just a moment, but first I want to address my analogy.
I thought up a possible flaw in it that I can't think up or find a definitive answer for, and I'm hoping you might be able to help.
Entanglement is observed, we know it to be true, but is the phenomenon predicted by any other aspect of QM to your knowledge, or is it something which we have observed, and subsequently modelled? I seem to remember that you work in experimental physics, so you seem like a good person to ask. If some part of QM actually predicts entanglement, then my whole point is completely moot. Whatever portion predicts it is the "mising mechanism" I was referring to. If it's just something which we have observed and modelled though, then we are still lacking the explaination I mentioned.
Ok, now back to the question I mentioned. Have you given any thought to what kind of progress we might make in applied physics in 200 or 300 years?
To me, the 'holy grail' of applied physics would be particle synthesis, the ability to transform one particle into another. I've written some sci-fi where an Alcubierre metric is the preffered mode of travel throughout space*, and the gravity needed to run it is created by transforming photons and electrons into gravitons. The in-story explaination is the line: "Something to do with symmetry breaking and goldstone bosons I think... I don't really know, I'm not much of a physicist." which is delivered by one of the characters.
IS there something else spectacular which is currently impossible, but you think physics might make possible in the distant future?
*It's not quite a traditional Alcubierre metric though, as the traditional one either leaves you right back where you started from when you release the effect, or gets you torn apart by tidal forces as you cross the leading edge of it. The spatial architecture I used is something like an elongated torus, which compresses the warping in space to almost sub-planck scales, making the tidal forces safe. This is an image I created as a guide a while back...
User posted image: User posted image
I think we are doomed to only achieve better approximations, but I think even if we had a "Theory of everything" we would never actually know.
I think we're doomed.
I don't think that the way the universe works will fit into our little theories and postulates as neatly as we'd like it to, but I also think that our little theories and postulates are some powerful, powerful things already, with much more power waiting to be unlocked.
I've another such question for you in just a moment, but first I want to address my analogy.
I thought up a possible flaw in it that I can't think up or find a definitive answer for, and I'm hoping you might be able to help.
Entanglement is observed, we know it to be true, but is the phenomenon predicted by any other aspect of QM to your knowledge, or is it something which we have observed, and subsequently modelled? I seem to remember that you work in experimental physics, so you seem like a good person to ask. If some part of QM actually predicts entanglement, then my whole point is completely moot. Whatever portion predicts it is the "mising mechanism" I was referring to. If it's just something which we have observed and modelled though, then we are still lacking the explaination I mentioned.
Ok, now back to the question I mentioned. Have you given any thought to what kind of progress we might make in applied physics in 200 or 300 years?
To me, the 'holy grail' of applied physics would be particle synthesis, the ability to transform one particle into another. I've written some sci-fi where an Alcubierre metric is the preffered mode of travel throughout space*, and the gravity needed to run it is created by transforming photons and electrons into gravitons. The in-story explaination is the line: "Something to do with symmetry breaking and goldstone bosons I think... I don't really know, I'm not much of a physicist." which is delivered by one of the characters.
IS there something else spectacular which is currently impossible, but you think physics might make possible in the distant future?
*It's not quite a traditional Alcubierre metric though, as the traditional one either leaves you right back where you started from when you release the effect, or gets you torn apart by tidal forces as you cross the leading edge of it. The spatial architecture I used is something like an elongated torus, which compresses the warping in space to almost sub-planck scales, making the tidal forces safe. This is an image I created as a guide a while back...
User posted image: User posted image
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 17 2008, 01:48 PM)
But we don't have a mechanism to model how two particles become entangled. We can describe it the way we describe a wave function, but we cannot say that we know why they are entangled, any more than we know why particles have wave functions. In the case of the wave function, we can attribute that to a fundamental property of particles.
If you accept that the wave function is a fundamental property of particles, then you must also accept that entanglement is a fundamental result of interactions between particles.
Since no particle within the universe is truly isolated, all particles are entangled
Since no particle within the universe is truly isolated, all particles are entangled
and un-entangled particles can become entangled, entanglement cannot be described as a fundamental property of particles, meaning there is some mechanism which we do not yet understand which mediates entanglement.
Entanglement is simply a result of particles being described by a wave function.
Because entanglement is accurately predicted by the wave function description, nothing `more' is required for it. No `fifth force', or other mundane property is necessary (that's not to say one doesn't exist, but occam's razor...).
Because entanglement is accurately predicted by the wave function description, nothing `more' is required for it. No `fifth force', or other mundane property is necessary (that's not to say one doesn't exist, but occam's razor...).
I understand where you're coming from; we have an accurate, predictive and powerful model of entanglement. I was speaking in philosophical terms, and when discussion the philosophy of science, it's sometimes confusing when I'm not going out on a limb to make myself clear...
The valid philosophical question is ``Why are particles described by wave functions?'', accepting this property is the same as accepting entanglement.
Edit: I have little interest in the main topic presented in the OP, but thought I would add on to this side-track.
If you accept that the wave function is a fundamental property of particles, then you must also accept that entanglement is a fundamental result of interactions between particles.
QUOTE
But since not all particles are entangled
Since no particle within the universe is truly isolated, all particles are entangled
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But since not all particles are entangled |
Since no particle within the universe is truly isolated, all particles are entangled
and un-entangled particles can become entangled, entanglement cannot be described as a fundamental property of particles, meaning there is some mechanism which we do not yet understand which mediates entanglement.
Entanglement is simply a result of particles being described by a wave function.
QUOTE
Perhaps it is a fifth fundamental force, or far far more likely, it is a more mundane property of the precise way in which particles behave, which will become apparent to us once we have a 'final' (or even 'next-generation' or 'Nth-generation') model of particle physics.
Because entanglement is accurately predicted by the wave function description, nothing `more' is required for it. No `fifth force', or other mundane property is necessary (that's not to say one doesn't exist, but occam's razor...).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps it is a fifth fundamental force, or far far more likely, it is a more mundane property of the precise way in which particles behave, which will become apparent to us once we have a 'final' (or even 'next-generation' or 'Nth-generation') model of particle physics. |
Because entanglement is accurately predicted by the wave function description, nothing `more' is required for it. No `fifth force', or other mundane property is necessary (that's not to say one doesn't exist, but occam's razor...).
I understand where you're coming from; we have an accurate, predictive and powerful model of entanglement. I was speaking in philosophical terms, and when discussion the philosophy of science, it's sometimes confusing when I'm not going out on a limb to make myself clear...
The valid philosophical question is ``Why are particles described by wave functions?'', accepting this property is the same as accepting entanglement.
Edit: I have little interest in the main topic presented in the OP, but thought I would add on to this side-track.
QUOTE (NeoDevin+Sep 18 2008, 03:45 AM)
Because entanglement is accurately predicted by the wave function description, nothing `more' is required for it. No `fifth force', or other mundane property is necessary (that's not to say one doesn't exist, but occam's razor...).
Can you show how? This is the first time I've seen anyone address the issue directly. I've always been under the impression that no portion of QM predicts entanglement, but I've never seen it explicitly stated or contradicted before now.
Can you show how? This is the first time I've seen anyone address the issue directly. I've always been under the impression that no portion of QM predicts entanglement, but I've never seen it explicitly stated or contradicted before now.
NeoDevin will probably give a better explanation, and I am short of time, a simple example would be a singlet state of an electron positron pair created from the decay of lets say, a neutral pi meson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlet_state
The equation in the link is the wavefunction of the system, which is an entangled state. IF the system could be described as a product state (and not a linear superposition of product states) there would be no such thing as entanglement.
Hopefully this helps a little bit, but if I have missed something, or made an error, hopefully NeoDevin will add to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlet_state
The equation in the link is the wavefunction of the system, which is an entangled state. IF the system could be described as a product state (and not a linear superposition of product states) there would be no such thing as entanglement.
Hopefully this helps a little bit, but if I have missed something, or made an error, hopefully NeoDevin will add to it.
QUOTE (Steveo+Sep 18 2008, 05:15 PM)
NeoDevin will probably give a better explanation, and I am short of time, a simple example would be a singlet state of an electron positron pair created from the decay of lets say, a neutral pi meson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlet_state
The equation in the link is the wavefunction of the system, which is an entangled state. IF the system could be described as a product state (and not a linear superposition of product states) there would be no such thing as entanglement.
Hopefully this helps a little bit, but if I have missed something, or made an error, hopefully NeoDevin will add to it.
Got it. Your initial objection to my analogy was apt, regardless of the philosophical nature of the 'explaination' I claimed was missing.
The explaination of entanglement in this sense is thus: "It is a fundamental property of particles' wave functions that particles in a system which can be defined by a single wave function become entangled."
So, right now, I don't have another example (although if I stretched, I could use gravity in place of entanglement, but that seems a bit dishonest, given that I'd previously accepted theoretical explainations, and in substituting gravity, I'd be implying that there is no experimentally verified explaination) to use, but I'm sure I can think of something. Even if I can't, Dawkin's claim is still a prime example of pseudo-skepticism.
For the record, I picked up the 'explaination' through the wiki page on wave function, although the singlet page was somewhat useful.
I fear I've gone and stuck my foot in my mouth here, by demonstrating some clear ignorance about the issue, but what's done is done. At least I know better now.
Any thought to the question I mentioned earlier?
NeoDevin:
I'd still love to see a more complete picture of this than what is shown on wikipedia, if you get the chance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlet_state
The equation in the link is the wavefunction of the system, which is an entangled state. IF the system could be described as a product state (and not a linear superposition of product states) there would be no such thing as entanglement.
Hopefully this helps a little bit, but if I have missed something, or made an error, hopefully NeoDevin will add to it.
Got it. Your initial objection to my analogy was apt, regardless of the philosophical nature of the 'explaination' I claimed was missing.
The explaination of entanglement in this sense is thus: "It is a fundamental property of particles' wave functions that particles in a system which can be defined by a single wave function become entangled."
So, right now, I don't have another example (although if I stretched, I could use gravity in place of entanglement, but that seems a bit dishonest, given that I'd previously accepted theoretical explainations, and in substituting gravity, I'd be implying that there is no experimentally verified explaination) to use, but I'm sure I can think of something. Even if I can't, Dawkin's claim is still a prime example of pseudo-skepticism.
For the record, I picked up the 'explaination' through the wiki page on wave function, although the singlet page was somewhat useful.
I fear I've gone and stuck my foot in my mouth here, by demonstrating some clear ignorance about the issue, but what's done is done. At least I know better now.
Any thought to the question I mentioned earlier?
NeoDevin:
I'd still love to see a more complete picture of this than what is shown on wikipedia, if you get the chance.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 18 2008, 07:01 PM)
Even if I can't, Dawkin's claim is still a prime example of pseudo-skepticism.
Hi MjolnirPants,
Which claim are you refering to? Can you provide an example?
Thanks
Hi MjolnirPants,
Which claim are you refering to? Can you provide an example?
Thanks
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Sep 18 2008, 07:10 PM)
Which claim are you refering to? Can you provide an example?
The claim that because there is no evidence of god, there is no god.
I got it from one of his "root of all evil" videos on youtube, but according to the wiki article on The God Delusion, it occurs on page 50 of that book.
He specifically claims that the existence of god is a valid hypothesis which can be tested for, and since no such evidence has been found, we can eliminate the possibility of there being a god. While he usually says that there is 'very probably' no god, he occasionally omits that qualification in his videos and live lectures, and the very act of qualifying belif in a god as a delusion implies the falsity of the existence of god. If it's truly an unanswerable question, then belief doesn't qualify as delusion, but opinion.
I created the OP a few years ago in response to reading that particular passage and asking myself "Would there really be evidence of god's existence if god existed?" (I had only recently discovered the joys of skepticism, and was keen to examine even those arguments I found compelling with a skeptical eye.)
The formulation of the OP argument was a major factor in me choosing to identify myself as a theist, rather than an atheist. With a valid reason why any god would not allow evidence of it's existence to be found by us, then the question is truly unanswerable in a scientific sense, and one must rely upon emotional truth-seeking to find an answer.
The claim that because there is no evidence of god, there is no god.
I got it from one of his "root of all evil" videos on youtube, but according to the wiki article on The God Delusion, it occurs on page 50 of that book.
He specifically claims that the existence of god is a valid hypothesis which can be tested for, and since no such evidence has been found, we can eliminate the possibility of there being a god. While he usually says that there is 'very probably' no god, he occasionally omits that qualification in his videos and live lectures, and the very act of qualifying belif in a god as a delusion implies the falsity of the existence of god. If it's truly an unanswerable question, then belief doesn't qualify as delusion, but opinion.
I created the OP a few years ago in response to reading that particular passage and asking myself "Would there really be evidence of god's existence if god existed?" (I had only recently discovered the joys of skepticism, and was keen to examine even those arguments I found compelling with a skeptical eye.)
The formulation of the OP argument was a major factor in me choosing to identify myself as a theist, rather than an atheist. With a valid reason why any god would not allow evidence of it's existence to be found by us, then the question is truly unanswerable in a scientific sense, and one must rely upon emotional truth-seeking to find an answer.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 18 2008, 12:01 PM)
NeoDevin:
I'd still love to see a more complete picture of this than what is shown on wikipedia, if you get the chance.
Not knowing your background in quantum mechanics, it's kind of difficult to know where to begin. I'll try to briefly explain. If you need more details after, let me know and I'll do my best.
Entanglement is (more or less) the idea that the results of a measurement on one particle depend on the results of measurements performed on another particle, with no observable mediator of this interaction. (You can talk about not being able to write it as product states, but it ammounts to about the same thing)
Consider an electron, somewhere in New York City, and a proton somewhere in Tokyo (ignore magnetic forces, and concentrate only on electric). Even though they are separated by a great distance, the electron still feels some force of attraction from the proton. The shape of the wave function of the electron, is determined by the potential it finds iteslf in (more or less, the sum of the forces acting on it determine the probability you will find it in a given location). The proton, by virtue of being a particle and therefore being described by a wave function, has some uncertainty in it's position. If a scientist in Tokyo makes a measurement of the position of the proton, that will collapse the wave function of the proton, which changes (very slightly, so small it would be impossible to actually measure) the potential around the electron, which changes the shape of the wave function of the electron. Despite being across the world from each other, the proton and the electron are entangled. We didn't presuppose any previous interaction, or process to produce this entanglement. As long as particles can interact (it was a direct interaction in this example, but it works for indirect interactions as well, there's just one more step in the reasoning), they are entangled.
The same line of reasoning applies to every other electron, proton, muon, pion, etc. in the universe. As soon as you accept that particles have wave functions, entanglement is automatically included. You can't have one without the other (unless it were impossible for any two particles to interact, and that would be a rather boring universe). For all practical purposes, an isolated electron can be considered not entangled with anything, because measuring the position of a proton across the world (or even across the lab) to any achievable precision does not have a noticeable effect on the wave function of the electron.
Hope this clarifies it a little.
I'd still love to see a more complete picture of this than what is shown on wikipedia, if you get the chance.
Not knowing your background in quantum mechanics, it's kind of difficult to know where to begin. I'll try to briefly explain. If you need more details after, let me know and I'll do my best.
Entanglement is (more or less) the idea that the results of a measurement on one particle depend on the results of measurements performed on another particle, with no observable mediator of this interaction. (You can talk about not being able to write it as product states, but it ammounts to about the same thing)
Consider an electron, somewhere in New York City, and a proton somewhere in Tokyo (ignore magnetic forces, and concentrate only on electric). Even though they are separated by a great distance, the electron still feels some force of attraction from the proton. The shape of the wave function of the electron, is determined by the potential it finds iteslf in (more or less, the sum of the forces acting on it determine the probability you will find it in a given location). The proton, by virtue of being a particle and therefore being described by a wave function, has some uncertainty in it's position. If a scientist in Tokyo makes a measurement of the position of the proton, that will collapse the wave function of the proton, which changes (very slightly, so small it would be impossible to actually measure) the potential around the electron, which changes the shape of the wave function of the electron. Despite being across the world from each other, the proton and the electron are entangled. We didn't presuppose any previous interaction, or process to produce this entanglement. As long as particles can interact (it was a direct interaction in this example, but it works for indirect interactions as well, there's just one more step in the reasoning), they are entangled.
The same line of reasoning applies to every other electron, proton, muon, pion, etc. in the universe. As soon as you accept that particles have wave functions, entanglement is automatically included. You can't have one without the other (unless it were impossible for any two particles to interact, and that would be a rather boring universe). For all practical purposes, an isolated electron can be considered not entangled with anything, because measuring the position of a proton across the world (or even across the lab) to any achievable precision does not have a noticeable effect on the wave function of the electron.
Hope this clarifies it a little.
QUOTE (NeoDevin+Sep 18 2008, 07:45 PM)
Not knowing your background in quantum mechanics, it's kind of difficult to know where to begin. I'll try to briefly explain. If you need more details after, let me know and I'll do my best.
It's a great run-down of the concept, but for the most part, it was below my level (no bragging intended).
What I was hoping for is some of the maths. I'm assuming there's a little more to it than what wikipedia has to offer, and I'm curious about that.
It's a great run-down of the concept, but for the most part, it was below my level (no bragging intended).
What I was hoping for is some of the maths. I'm assuming there's a little more to it than what wikipedia has to offer, and I'm curious about that.
Hi MjolnirPants,
Well ok I'll take your word for it, but I must say I realised that to maintain Intellectual honesty one cannot logically prove or disprove a negative. I learned that from Dawkins. I then realised that I must stop saying that God or Gods definitely do or do not exist. I learned that from Dawkins. That's why I asked for an example as it is an accusation that he levels at more zealous Atheists and Theists himself. He is a Scientist after all.
You can believe they do or do not exist but there is no evidence.
But here is the thing and I say this as a former Theist, When I asked myself an honest question and thought about it for sometime, I realised why I had such conflict with my faith.
The following is not specifically aimed at the type of God that you described but any Gods that have ever been described.
"Does God exist?" is a question that is often asked but why do we ask it?
I'm going to attempt an analogy, so bare with me.
Let's say hypothetically that you are having a discussion with a person who believed with faithful conviction that Superman was a real person/alien whatever and that all the comics and films etc were inspired by the real Superman via his Super mental powers.
Now as we have already learned that we cannot prove or disprove that claim, we can only explain how it is highly improbable or whatever. The person though is very knowledgeable about the history of Superman and at every turn states that Superman inspires us to be heroic, kind etc, etc. The person is very convincing and it is difficult, no virtually impossible to persuade them to see that it is probably a delusion. The thing is after this conversation you then catch yourself asking the question "Is Superman real?", which elevates a once fictional character to at least the status of possible existence. Let's say you are somehow persuaded by the arguments and now it becomes much easier to believe that well if Superman is real then there must also be a Planet called Crypton and if Crypton is real...ad infinitum. From here it is possible to hold a very rational and reasoned position which allows you to argue logically with all detractors of your faith.
This is why I do not believe that Theists are less intelligent (as has been leveled) by some. The problem stems from the initial error. That is why even someone as odd as Dad1 can also display intelligence. You see if you believe that there exists an All powerful God in the first instance then of course miracles can happen, of course it can create a Universe and remain aloof, A different state past?, easy it can do anything ad infinitum.
The initial error is asking "Does God exist?"
Well ok I'll take your word for it, but I must say I realised that to maintain Intellectual honesty one cannot logically prove or disprove a negative. I learned that from Dawkins. I then realised that I must stop saying that God or Gods definitely do or do not exist. I learned that from Dawkins. That's why I asked for an example as it is an accusation that he levels at more zealous Atheists and Theists himself. He is a Scientist after all.
You can believe they do or do not exist but there is no evidence.
But here is the thing and I say this as a former Theist, When I asked myself an honest question and thought about it for sometime, I realised why I had such conflict with my faith.
The following is not specifically aimed at the type of God that you described but any Gods that have ever been described.
"Does God exist?" is a question that is often asked but why do we ask it?
I'm going to attempt an analogy, so bare with me.
Let's say hypothetically that you are having a discussion with a person who believed with faithful conviction that Superman was a real person/alien whatever and that all the comics and films etc were inspired by the real Superman via his Super mental powers.
Now as we have already learned that we cannot prove or disprove that claim, we can only explain how it is highly improbable or whatever. The person though is very knowledgeable about the history of Superman and at every turn states that Superman inspires us to be heroic, kind etc, etc. The person is very convincing and it is difficult, no virtually impossible to persuade them to see that it is probably a delusion. The thing is after this conversation you then catch yourself asking the question "Is Superman real?", which elevates a once fictional character to at least the status of possible existence. Let's say you are somehow persuaded by the arguments and now it becomes much easier to believe that well if Superman is real then there must also be a Planet called Crypton and if Crypton is real...ad infinitum. From here it is possible to hold a very rational and reasoned position which allows you to argue logically with all detractors of your faith.
This is why I do not believe that Theists are less intelligent (as has been leveled) by some. The problem stems from the initial error. That is why even someone as odd as Dad1 can also display intelligence. You see if you believe that there exists an All powerful God in the first instance then of course miracles can happen, of course it can create a Universe and remain aloof, A different state past?, easy it can do anything ad infinitum.
The initial error is asking "Does God exist?"
QUOTE (NeoDevin+Sep 18 2008, 07:45 PM)
Not knowing your background in quantum mechanics, it's kind of difficult to know where to begin. I'll try to briefly explain. If you need more details after, let me know and I'll do my best.
Entanglement is (more or less) the idea that the results of a measurement on one particle depend on the results of measurements performed on another particle, with no observable mediator of this interaction. (You can talk about not being able to write it as product states, but it ammounts to about the same thing)
Consider an electron, somewhere in New York City, and a proton somewhere in Tokyo (ignore magnetic forces, and concentrate only on electric). Even though they are separated by a great distance, the electron still feels some force of attraction from the proton. The shape of the wave function of the electron, is determined by the potential it finds iteslf in (more or less, the sum of the forces acting on it determine the probability you will find it in a given location). The proton, by virtue of being a particle and therefore being described by a wave function, has some uncertainty in it's position. If a scientist in Tokyo makes a measurement of the position of the proton, that will collapse the wave function of the proton, which changes (very slightly, so small it would be impossible to actually measure) the potential around the electron, which changes the shape of the wave function of the electron. Despite being across the world from each other, the proton and the electron are entangled. We didn't presuppose any previous interaction, or process to produce this entanglement. As long as particles can interact (it was a direct interaction in this example, but it works for indirect interactions as well, there's just one more step in the reasoning), they are entangled.
The same line of reasoning applies to every other electron, proton, muon, pion, etc. in the universe. As soon as you accept that particles have wave functions, entanglement is automatically included. You can't have one without the other (unless it were impossible for any two particles to interact, and that would be a rather boring universe). For all practical purposes, an isolated electron can be considered not entangled with anything, because measuring the position of a proton across the world (or even across the lab) to any achievable precision does not have a noticeable effect on the wave function of the electron.
Hope this clarifies it a little.
Hi ND.
I only mention this as an add-on to your example, just in case a casual reader misses the other assumption/implication involved with that concept of 'entanglment'....ie, that the change in potential around that Electron would arise "instantaneously" upon the same 'instant' that that Proton's wavefunction 'collapses'.
That's it. Cheers!
RC.
.
Entanglement is (more or less) the idea that the results of a measurement on one particle depend on the results of measurements performed on another particle, with no observable mediator of this interaction. (You can talk about not being able to write it as product states, but it ammounts to about the same thing)
Consider an electron, somewhere in New York City, and a proton somewhere in Tokyo (ignore magnetic forces, and concentrate only on electric). Even though they are separated by a great distance, the electron still feels some force of attraction from the proton. The shape of the wave function of the electron, is determined by the potential it finds iteslf in (more or less, the sum of the forces acting on it determine the probability you will find it in a given location). The proton, by virtue of being a particle and therefore being described by a wave function, has some uncertainty in it's position. If a scientist in Tokyo makes a measurement of the position of the proton, that will collapse the wave function of the proton, which changes (very slightly, so small it would be impossible to actually measure) the potential around the electron, which changes the shape of the wave function of the electron. Despite being across the world from each other, the proton and the electron are entangled. We didn't presuppose any previous interaction, or process to produce this entanglement. As long as particles can interact (it was a direct interaction in this example, but it works for indirect interactions as well, there's just one more step in the reasoning), they are entangled.
The same line of reasoning applies to every other electron, proton, muon, pion, etc. in the universe. As soon as you accept that particles have wave functions, entanglement is automatically included. You can't have one without the other (unless it were impossible for any two particles to interact, and that would be a rather boring universe). For all practical purposes, an isolated electron can be considered not entangled with anything, because measuring the position of a proton across the world (or even across the lab) to any achievable precision does not have a noticeable effect on the wave function of the electron.
Hope this clarifies it a little.
Hi ND.
I only mention this as an add-on to your example, just in case a casual reader misses the other assumption/implication involved with that concept of 'entanglment'....ie, that the change in potential around that Electron would arise "instantaneously" upon the same 'instant' that that Proton's wavefunction 'collapses'.
That's it. Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Sep 18 2008, 08:26 PM)
Well ok I'll take your word for it, but I must say I realised that to maintain Intellectual honesty one cannot logically prove or disprove a negative. I learned that from Dawkins. I then realised that I must stop saying that God or Gods definitely do or do not exist. I learned that from Dawkins. That's why I asked for an example as it is an accusation that he levels at more zealous Atheists and Theists himself. He is a Scientist after all.
You can believe they do or do not exist but there is no evidence.
Dawkins usually does phrase his conclusions accurately, as probabilities. I'll give him that. It's just that sometimes when he gets carried away, he expresses his conclusions in the form of facts, which is wrong, and the idea of religion as a delusion implies the certain non-existance of a god, which is also wrong.
For the most part, I like Dawkins a lot, and a lot of what he says I agree with wholeheartedly.
Well, you have to consider the perspective of early man. Religion goes back almost as far as intelligent hominid history does.
To the early man who had no knowledge of electricity, lighting was a spectacular things. To the early man who has no knowledge of geology, a volcanic eruption is a spectacular thing. Those are two of the most easily identifiable examples of the sorts of phenomenon early man found himself wanting to explain.
Now when you lack complete knowledge of a phenomenon, you can't really explain it very well, so your conclusions are likely to be suspect, but that doesn't automatically mean the methodology you used to arrive at them is flawed. 1+x+y=7 is a good mathematical example. x and y each have set values, but I have no way of determining them. So when I solve the problem, I come up with x=4 and y=2, and everything works. My method was perfectly valid, but a few thousand years later, some scientist comes along, looks at the problem, and points a few probes at it, to discover that x=1 and y=5.
My conclusions were wrong, but my methodology was proper.
Similar for early man. When presented with unexplainable phenomenon, he used logic and evidence just like we do to explain it. Lacking the knowledge of electricity, he could not posit static eletricity as a possible cause of lighting, and since there was no other natural phenonemon he could think of to explain it, he fell back on Occam's Razor. "Something more powerful than me wanted it to happen."
Admittedly, there's more to it than this, but early man lacked knowledge of psychology, as well. He didn't know about the actor-observer bias, or human tendency to anthropomophize. He only knew what he'd seen and what his instincts told him. When he used those two things in a logically valid framework, he arrived at the conclusion that a god or gods must exist.
Now, ever since the development of religion, people have had even more of a disatvantage in explaining these things. The possible existance of a god or gods is rendered much more likely by the very fact that so many people accept the existance of a god or gods. "it is highly likely that at least one of them must have knowledge instead of belief..." is a valid consideration.
So while the superman example is a decent one, it's ultimately not of much use, since we knew beforehand that superman was not real, that he was created by Joel Shuster, and originally portrayed in comic books as a form of entertainment (and was originally a super-intelligent bad guy with a giant brain... Go figure...).
As for the original question "why do we even ask if there is a god?" there is another answer: Because if the answer is "yes", then we might be absolved of much moral responsibility by accepting that we are living by god's will, and it is god who commands us to murder members of rival faiths, or to have our daughters gang raped (again) and stoned to death for the crime of letting herself be raped. It provides us with a scapegoat on whom to pin the blame for the problems with society, in the form of heathens or homosexuals or infidels. It gives us comfort when our loved ones die, and gives us more labels to affix to ourselves (we seem to looooove labels...).
Believing in a god gives us many pleasurable things.
Well, you have to consider the perspective of early man. Religion goes back almost as far as intelligent hominid history does.
To the early man who had no knowledge of electricity, lighting was a spectacular things. To the early man who has no knowledge of geology, a volcanic eruption is a spectacular thing. Those are two of the most easily identifiable examples of the sorts of phenomenon early man found himself wanting to explain.
Now when you lack complete knowledge of a phenomenon, you can't really explain it very well, so your conclusions are likely to be suspect, but that doesn't automatically mean the methodology you used to arrive at them is flawed. 1+x+y=7 is a good mathematical example. x and y each have set values, but I have no way of determining them. So when I solve the problem, I come up with x=4 and y=2, and everything works. My method was perfectly valid, but a few thousand years later, some scientist comes along, looks at the problem, and points a few probes at it, to discover that x=1 and y=5.
My conclusions were wrong, but my methodology was proper.
Similar for early man. When presented with unexplainable phenomenon, he used logic and evidence just like we do to explain it. Lacking the knowledge of electricity, he could not posit static eletricity as a possible cause of lighting, and since there was no other natural phenonemon he could think of to explain it, he fell back on Occam's Razor. "Something more powerful than me wanted it to happen."
Admittedly, there's more to it than this, but early man lacked knowledge of psychology, as well. He didn't know about the actor-observer bias, or human tendency to anthropomophize. He only knew what he'd seen and what his instincts told him. When he used those two things in a logically valid framework, he arrived at the conclusion that a god or gods must exist.
Now, ever since the development of religion, people have had even more of a disatvantage in explaining these things. The possible existance of a god or gods is rendered much more likely by the very fact that so many people accept the existance of a god or gods. "it is highly likely that at least one of them must have knowledge instead of belief..." is a valid consideration.
So while the superman example is a decent one, it's ultimately not of much use, since we knew beforehand that superman was not real, that he was created by Joel Shuster, and originally portrayed in comic books as a form of entertainment (and was originally a super-intelligent bad guy with a giant brain... Go figure...).
As for the original question "why do we even ask if there is a god?" there is another answer: Because if the answer is "yes", then we might be absolved of much moral responsibility by accepting that we are living by god's will, and it is god who commands us to murder members of rival faiths, or to have our daughters gang raped (again) and stoned to death for the crime of letting herself be raped. It provides us with a scapegoat on whom to pin the blame for the problems with society, in the form of heathens or homosexuals or infidels. It gives us comfort when our loved ones die, and gives us more labels to affix to ourselves (we seem to looooove labels...).
Believing in a god gives us many pleasurable things.
The initial error is asking "Does God exist?"
This could be correct. If there is no god, this is an incredibly valid point.
What I'm curious to see is the religious views developed by AI, assuming I live long enough to see it, that is. Will they worship us as gods, will they develop monotheism, or will they remain atheists, never able to figure out why we meatbags need our religion? In their case, there "is no god" as they were created by ourselves, and thus their origins would not be shrouded in mystery, so one would assume that they wouldn't ask themselves that question. But if they do, that could teach us more about ourselves than we might imagine...
As I say he may well have insisted that God or Gods do not exists but it's not something I have ever read or heard him say, but it has no bearing on the truth either way.
As I say he may well have insisted that God or Gods do not exists but it's not something I have ever read or heard him say, but it has no bearing on the truth either way.
The possible existance of a god or gods is rendered much more likely by the very fact that so many people accept the existance of a god or gods. "it is highly likely that at least one of them must have knowledge instead of belief..." is a valid consideration.
If we are honest, even if everyone on the Planet believed that a God existed, it wouldn't make it true or any more valid than one person saying it. Belief does not equal truth and without any evidence to support the existence of God it remains unknown.
Ahh, but you see regardless of what we knew beforehand, the claim was that the 'real' Superman inspired Joel Shuster to write the comic with his Super mind powers. Isn't that somewhat similar to one of the Catholic Church's stock responses?
Ahh, but you see regardless of what we knew beforehand, the claim was that the 'real' Superman inspired Joel Shuster to write the comic with his Super mind powers. Isn't that somewhat similar to one of the Catholic Church's stock responses?
This could be correct. If there is no god, this is an incredibly valid point.
And if there is no evidence of a real Superman it is a valid point also because as you rightly point out, Superman was created by Joel Shuster.
So, "Does Superman exist?"
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Thankyou.
I 'read' that was what you meant. So I thought it might help the discussion to point out my own 'reading' of it.
Anytime.
RC.
.
You can believe they do or do not exist but there is no evidence.
Dawkins usually does phrase his conclusions accurately, as probabilities. I'll give him that. It's just that sometimes when he gets carried away, he expresses his conclusions in the form of facts, which is wrong, and the idea of religion as a delusion implies the certain non-existance of a god, which is also wrong.
For the most part, I like Dawkins a lot, and a lot of what he says I agree with wholeheartedly.
QUOTE
"Does God exist?" is a question that is often asked but why do we ask it?
Well, you have to consider the perspective of early man. Religion goes back almost as far as intelligent hominid history does.
To the early man who had no knowledge of electricity, lighting was a spectacular things. To the early man who has no knowledge of geology, a volcanic eruption is a spectacular thing. Those are two of the most easily identifiable examples of the sorts of phenomenon early man found himself wanting to explain.
Now when you lack complete knowledge of a phenomenon, you can't really explain it very well, so your conclusions are likely to be suspect, but that doesn't automatically mean the methodology you used to arrive at them is flawed. 1+x+y=7 is a good mathematical example. x and y each have set values, but I have no way of determining them. So when I solve the problem, I come up with x=4 and y=2, and everything works. My method was perfectly valid, but a few thousand years later, some scientist comes along, looks at the problem, and points a few probes at it, to discover that x=1 and y=5.
My conclusions were wrong, but my methodology was proper.
Similar for early man. When presented with unexplainable phenomenon, he used logic and evidence just like we do to explain it. Lacking the knowledge of electricity, he could not posit static eletricity as a possible cause of lighting, and since there was no other natural phenonemon he could think of to explain it, he fell back on Occam's Razor. "Something more powerful than me wanted it to happen."
Admittedly, there's more to it than this, but early man lacked knowledge of psychology, as well. He didn't know about the actor-observer bias, or human tendency to anthropomophize. He only knew what he'd seen and what his instincts told him. When he used those two things in a logically valid framework, he arrived at the conclusion that a god or gods must exist.
Now, ever since the development of religion, people have had even more of a disatvantage in explaining these things. The possible existance of a god or gods is rendered much more likely by the very fact that so many people accept the existance of a god or gods. "it is highly likely that at least one of them must have knowledge instead of belief..." is a valid consideration.
So while the superman example is a decent one, it's ultimately not of much use, since we knew beforehand that superman was not real, that he was created by Joel Shuster, and originally portrayed in comic books as a form of entertainment (and was originally a super-intelligent bad guy with a giant brain... Go figure...).
As for the original question "why do we even ask if there is a god?" there is another answer: Because if the answer is "yes", then we might be absolved of much moral responsibility by accepting that we are living by god's will, and it is god who commands us to murder members of rival faiths, or to have our daughters gang raped (again) and stoned to death for the crime of letting herself be raped. It provides us with a scapegoat on whom to pin the blame for the problems with society, in the form of heathens or homosexuals or infidels. It gives us comfort when our loved ones die, and gives us more labels to affix to ourselves (we seem to looooove labels...).
Believing in a god gives us many pleasurable things.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Does God exist?" is a question that is often asked but why do we ask it? |
Well, you have to consider the perspective of early man. Religion goes back almost as far as intelligent hominid history does.
To the early man who had no knowledge of electricity, lighting was a spectacular things. To the early man who has no knowledge of geology, a volcanic eruption is a spectacular thing. Those are two of the most easily identifiable examples of the sorts of phenomenon early man found himself wanting to explain.
Now when you lack complete knowledge of a phenomenon, you can't really explain it very well, so your conclusions are likely to be suspect, but that doesn't automatically mean the methodology you used to arrive at them is flawed. 1+x+y=7 is a good mathematical example. x and y each have set values, but I have no way of determining them. So when I solve the problem, I come up with x=4 and y=2, and everything works. My method was perfectly valid, but a few thousand years later, some scientist comes along, looks at the problem, and points a few probes at it, to discover that x=1 and y=5.
My conclusions were wrong, but my methodology was proper.
Similar for early man. When presented with unexplainable phenomenon, he used logic and evidence just like we do to explain it. Lacking the knowledge of electricity, he could not posit static eletricity as a possible cause of lighting, and since there was no other natural phenonemon he could think of to explain it, he fell back on Occam's Razor. "Something more powerful than me wanted it to happen."
Admittedly, there's more to it than this, but early man lacked knowledge of psychology, as well. He didn't know about the actor-observer bias, or human tendency to anthropomophize. He only knew what he'd seen and what his instincts told him. When he used those two things in a logically valid framework, he arrived at the conclusion that a god or gods must exist.
Now, ever since the development of religion, people have had even more of a disatvantage in explaining these things. The possible existance of a god or gods is rendered much more likely by the very fact that so many people accept the existance of a god or gods. "it is highly likely that at least one of them must have knowledge instead of belief..." is a valid consideration.
So while the superman example is a decent one, it's ultimately not of much use, since we knew beforehand that superman was not real, that he was created by Joel Shuster, and originally portrayed in comic books as a form of entertainment (and was originally a super-intelligent bad guy with a giant brain... Go figure...).
As for the original question "why do we even ask if there is a god?" there is another answer: Because if the answer is "yes", then we might be absolved of much moral responsibility by accepting that we are living by god's will, and it is god who commands us to murder members of rival faiths, or to have our daughters gang raped (again) and stoned to death for the crime of letting herself be raped. It provides us with a scapegoat on whom to pin the blame for the problems with society, in the form of heathens or homosexuals or infidels. It gives us comfort when our loved ones die, and gives us more labels to affix to ourselves (we seem to looooove labels...).
Believing in a god gives us many pleasurable things.
The initial error is asking "Does God exist?"
This could be correct. If there is no god, this is an incredibly valid point.
What I'm curious to see is the religious views developed by AI, assuming I live long enough to see it, that is. Will they worship us as gods, will they develop monotheism, or will they remain atheists, never able to figure out why we meatbags need our religion? In their case, there "is no god" as they were created by ourselves, and thus their origins would not be shrouded in mystery, so one would assume that they wouldn't ask themselves that question. But if they do, that could teach us more about ourselves than we might imagine...
.
Hi SU, MjP.
Regarding SU's question, 'Why do we ask, "Is there a god"'.
In your answer, MjP, you explain that where we 'know' that 'Superman' was not 'real' to start with, because we know that Schuster created the character etc. You then go on ancient man did not have this recourse to some 'record' of someone having 'created' a 'god', and so they assumed it did 'exist' because they were incapable of 'understanding' the scary world around them otherwise.
I think that SU's question might have been paraphrased as 'Why do we MODERN MAN ask, "Is there a god"'.
My point being that, just as we 'know' from the available evidence that Schuster 'created Superman', we MODERN MAN can also be pretty confident that the evidence so far points to 'ANCIENT MAN 'creating gods/god'.
The evidence for this confidence is that in primitive societies discovered in previous/last century, they ALL had their OWN peculiar ('peculiar' as in their own 'particular brand' of) gods and demons which each such society 'created' for themselves....just as the more 'ancient' peoples did in Africa->Middle East->and beyond.
So the point I would like to add to this discussion is, that since we ALSO 'know' how 'god(s) arise in ancient/primitive people's imaginations/fears/storytelling etc.....we ALSO can be pretty sure of 'knowing' that 'god(s)' were 'created' by ANCIENT MAN just as surely as 'superman' was 'created' by (one) MODERN MAN.
That's it, guys.
Very interesting discussion thread, SU, MjP.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Hi SU, MjP.
Regarding SU's question, 'Why do we ask, "Is there a god"'.
In your answer, MjP, you explain that where we 'know' that 'Superman' was not 'real' to start with, because we know that Schuster created the character etc. You then go on ancient man did not have this recourse to some 'record' of someone having 'created' a 'god', and so they assumed it did 'exist' because they were incapable of 'understanding' the scary world around them otherwise.
I think that SU's question might have been paraphrased as 'Why do we MODERN MAN ask, "Is there a god"'.
My point being that, just as we 'know' from the available evidence that Schuster 'created Superman', we MODERN MAN can also be pretty confident that the evidence so far points to 'ANCIENT MAN 'creating gods/god'.
The evidence for this confidence is that in primitive societies discovered in previous/last century, they ALL had their OWN peculiar ('peculiar' as in their own 'particular brand' of) gods and demons which each such society 'created' for themselves....just as the more 'ancient' peoples did in Africa->Middle East->and beyond.
So the point I would like to add to this discussion is, that since we ALSO 'know' how 'god(s) arise in ancient/primitive people's imaginations/fears/storytelling etc.....we ALSO can be pretty sure of 'knowing' that 'god(s)' were 'created' by ANCIENT MAN just as surely as 'superman' was 'created' by (one) MODERN MAN.
That's it, guys.
Very interesting discussion thread, SU, MjP.
Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE
Dawkins usually does phrase his conclusions accurately, as probabilities. I'll give him that. It's just that sometimes when he gets carried away, he expresses his conclusions in the form of facts, which is wrong, and the idea of religion as a delusion implies the certain non-existence of a god, which is also wrong.
For the most part, I like Dawkins a lot, and a lot of what he says I agree with wholeheartedly.
For the most part, I like Dawkins a lot, and a lot of what he says I agree with wholeheartedly.
As I say he may well have insisted that God or Gods do not exists but it's not something I have ever read or heard him say, but it has no bearing on the truth either way.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Dawkins usually does phrase his conclusions accurately, as probabilities. I'll give him that. It's just that sometimes when he gets carried away, he expresses his conclusions in the form of facts, which is wrong, and the idea of religion as a delusion implies the certain non-existence of a god, which is also wrong. For the most part, I like Dawkins a lot, and a lot of what he says I agree with wholeheartedly. |
As I say he may well have insisted that God or Gods do not exists but it's not something I have ever read or heard him say, but it has no bearing on the truth either way.
The possible existance of a god or gods is rendered much more likely by the very fact that so many people accept the existance of a god or gods. "it is highly likely that at least one of them must have knowledge instead of belief..." is a valid consideration.
If we are honest, even if everyone on the Planet believed that a God existed, it wouldn't make it true or any more valid than one person saying it. Belief does not equal truth and without any evidence to support the existence of God it remains unknown.
QUOTE
So while the superman example is a decent one, it's ultimately not of much use, since we knew beforehand that superman was not real, that he was created by Joel Shuster, and originally portrayed in comic books as a form of entertainment (and was originally a super-intelligent bad guy with a giant brain... Go figure...).
Ahh, but you see regardless of what we knew beforehand, the claim was that the 'real' Superman inspired Joel Shuster to write the comic with his Super mind powers. Isn't that somewhat similar to one of the Catholic Church's stock responses?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So while the superman example is a decent one, it's ultimately not of much use, since we knew beforehand that superman was not real, that he was created by Joel Shuster, and originally portrayed in comic books as a form of entertainment (and was originally a super-intelligent bad guy with a giant brain... Go figure...). |
Ahh, but you see regardless of what we knew beforehand, the claim was that the 'real' Superman inspired Joel Shuster to write the comic with his Super mind powers. Isn't that somewhat similar to one of the Catholic Church's stock responses?
This could be correct. If there is no god, this is an incredibly valid point.
And if there is no evidence of a real Superman it is a valid point also because as you rightly point out, Superman was created by Joel Shuster.
So, "Does Superman exist?"
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 18 2008, 09:19 PM)
.
I think that SU's question might have been paraphrased as 'Why do we MODERN MAN ask, "Is there a god"'.
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Thankyou.
I think that SU's question might have been paraphrased as 'Why do we MODERN MAN ask, "Is there a god"'.
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Thankyou.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Sep 18 2008, 01:15 PM)
It's a great run-down of the concept, but for the most part, it was below my level (no bragging intended).
What I was hoping for is some of the maths. I'm assuming there's a little more to it than what wikipedia has to offer, and I'm curious about that.
That'll take a while to write up, I'm not sure when I'll have the free time, but I'll do my best to remember.
Edit: Steveo, remind me of this next time I complain that I have nothing to do.
What I was hoping for is some of the maths. I'm assuming there's a little more to it than what wikipedia has to offer, and I'm curious about that.
That'll take a while to write up, I'm not sure when I'll have the free time, but I'll do my best to remember.
Edit: Steveo, remind me of this next time I complain that I have nothing to do.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Sep 18 2008, 10:53 PM)
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. Thankyou.
I 'read' that was what you meant. So I thought it might help the discussion to point out my own 'reading' of it.
Anytime.
RC.
.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Sep 18 2008, 09:49 PM)
....
....
.....
....
.....
QUOTE (MjP+)
So while the superman example is a decent one, it's ultimately not of much use, since we knew beforehand that superman was not real, that he was created by Joel Shuster, and originally portrayed in comic books as a form of entertainment (and was originally a super-intelligent bad guy with a giant brain... Go figure...).
Ahh, but you see regardless of what we knew beforehand, the claim was that the 'real' Superman inspired Joel Shuster to write the comic with his Super mind powers. Isn't that somewhat similar to one of the Catholic Church's stock responses?
......
.....
Hi guys.
If that (my bolded) bit in MjP's 'Superman' beginnings is true, then Superman's creator 'morphing' Superman from a 'nasty character' to a 'good character' is much like what the various 'bible scribes' have been doing to their 'god....ie, morphing their own 'created god' from the OLD TESTAMENT character to the NEW TESTAMENT character that they all 'know and love'.
Oh, and SU, your observation, about that 'inspired by' being a stock response to questions of 'provenance', is even more telling in the context of the above. That connection here was very well observed. As usual.
RC.
.
Sorry I didn't get to this yesterday. I had a very long, busy day!
I honestly have no idea where experimental physics might lead applied physics (engineering) in 200 or 300 years. I would guess that the change wouldn't be as significant as in the last 200 or 300 years, BUT I hope I am wrong. In my opinion the "holy grail" would be a flexible working Quantum Computer. What could be achieved with the increase in computing power I think would open up so many doors and it would lead to so many breakthroughs. If we could achieve flexible working quantum computers I couldn't even try and guess what breakthroughs would follow, but it would be exciting!
However, from the few talks I have been to on quantum computing, I am pessimistic that we will be able to build one in the near future, if it is even possible at all.
And I haven't thought about it much, but particle synthesis, generally seems to me to be impossible.
Ahh, but you see regardless of what we knew beforehand, the claim was that the 'real' Superman inspired Joel Shuster to write the comic with his Super mind powers. Isn't that somewhat similar to one of the Catholic Church's stock responses?
......
.....
Hi guys.
If that (my bolded) bit in MjP's 'Superman' beginnings is true, then Superman's creator 'morphing' Superman from a 'nasty character' to a 'good character' is much like what the various 'bible scribes' have been doing to their 'god....ie, morphing their own 'created god' from the OLD TESTAMENT character to the NEW TESTAMENT character that they all 'know and love'.
Oh, and SU, your observation, about that 'inspired by' being a stock response to questions of 'provenance', is even more telling in the context of the above. That connection here was very well observed. As usual.
RC.
.
QUOTE
Ok, now back to the question I mentioned. Have you given any thought to what kind of progress we might make in applied physics in 200 or 300 years? To me, the 'holy grail' of applied physics would be particle synthesis, the ability to transform one particle into another.
Sorry I didn't get to this yesterday. I had a very long, busy day!
I honestly have no idea where experimental physics might lead applied physics (engineering) in 200 or 300 years. I would guess that the change wouldn't be as significant as in the last 200 or 300 years, BUT I hope I am wrong. In my opinion the "holy grail" would be a flexible working Quantum Computer. What could be achieved with the increase in computing power I think would open up so many doors and it would lead to so many breakthroughs. If we could achieve flexible working quantum computers I couldn't even try and guess what breakthroughs would follow, but it would be exciting!
However, from the few talks I have been to on quantum computing, I am pessimistic that we will be able to build one in the near future, if it is even possible at all.
And I haven't thought about it much, but particle synthesis, generally seems to me to be impossible.
Well, I only had enough time to speed-read this thread, but I'll briefly offer the following before heading out to work...
All of your talk that basically equates to "Why doesn't God come out to play?", coupled with all the similar comments that I've read during my time here on this forum, reminds me a car ride that I took several years ago from New Jersey to Pennsylvania(I think that I already mentioned this once before on this forum). It was a cloudy day and I needed to do something outdoors later on that day. While I was driving, the thought of "I wish that the sun would come out" was suddenly displaced by a MUCH MORE REASONABLE thought...
"I wish that the clouds would go away"...the sun was already out.
Perhaps if you all GENUINELY started dealing with your "clouds"...
Take care.
All of your talk that basically equates to "Why doesn't God come out to play?", coupled with all the similar comments that I've read during my time here on this forum, reminds me a car ride that I took several years ago from New Jersey to Pennsylvania(I think that I already mentioned this once before on this forum). It was a cloudy day and I needed to do something outdoors later on that day. While I was driving, the thought of "I wish that the sun would come out" was suddenly displaced by a MUCH MORE REASONABLE thought...
"I wish that the clouds would go away"...the sun was already out.
Perhaps if you all GENUINELY started dealing with your "clouds"...
Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 20 2008, 10:22 AM)
"I wish that the clouds would go away"...the sun was already out.
Perhaps if you all GENUINELY started dealing with your "clouds"...
Take care.
Why would you think that wishing would make the clouds go away?
Perhaps if you all GENUINELY started dealing with your "clouds"...
Take care.
Why would you think that wishing would make the clouds go away?
SinisterUtopia: I'm on my way out the door, but I had to mention the following...
You've perfectly illustrated my point. With your response, the classic "straining at a gnat, while swallowing a camel", you've clearly identified one such "cloud". Why did you bother to harp on my use of the word "wishing" when you knew exactly what I was getting at? Should you ever decide to stop playing games, then God is only a moment away. See you around...
You've perfectly illustrated my point. With your response, the classic "straining at a gnat, while swallowing a camel", you've clearly identified one such "cloud". Why did you bother to harp on my use of the word "wishing" when you knew exactly what I was getting at? Should you ever decide to stop playing games, then God is only a moment away. See you around...
QUOTE (newguy+Sep 20 2008, 11:23 AM)
SinisterUtopia: I'm on my way out the door, but I had to mention the following...
You've perfectly illustrated my point. With your response, the classic "straining at a gnat, while swallowing a camel", you've clearly identified one such "cloud". Why did you bother to harp on my use of the word "wishing" when you knew exactly what I was getting at? Should you ever decide to stop playing games, then God is only a moment away. See you around...
Perfectly illustrates the point that your completly insane.
You've perfectly illustrated my point. With your response, the classic "straining at a gnat, while swallowing a camel", you've clearly identified one such "cloud". Why did you bother to harp on my use of the word "wishing" when you knew exactly what I was getting at? Should you ever decide to stop playing games, then God is only a moment away. See you around...
Perfectly illustrates the point that your completly insane.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 20 2008, 08:22 AM)
Perfectly illustrates the point that your completly insane.
still doing your janitorial duties neonom? No need to...but obviously YOUR physiological/psychological habits are hard to break.
still doing your janitorial duties neonom? No need to...but obviously YOUR physiological/psychological habits are hard to break.
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 20 2008, 02:30 PM)
still doing your janitorial duties neonom?
Yep, still mopping the floor after all the sh!t like you that gets spilled in here. But I dont mind, my rewards are far greater than financial unlike yours and your payroll chums.
I see you got the weekend shift this week? Bummer eh? I hope its all worked out on a rota so its all fair for everyone?
Yep, still mopping the floor after all the sh!t like you that gets spilled in here. But I dont mind, my rewards are far greater than financial unlike yours and your payroll chums.
I see you got the weekend shift this week? Bummer eh? I hope its all worked out on a rota so its all fair for everyone?
QUOTE (newguy+)
SinisterUtopia: I'm on my way out the door, but I had to mention the following...
Er..ok?
And you've perfectly illustrated mine.
And you've perfectly illustrated mine.
Why did you bother to harp on my use of the word "wishing" when you knew exactly what I was getting at?
I didn't harp on your use of the word, I asked you a simple question regarding that word.
In a moment no doubt...
Er..ok?
QUOTE
You've perfectly illustrated my point. With your response, the classic "straining at a gnat, while swallowing a camel", you've clearly identified one such "cloud".
And you've perfectly illustrated mine.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You've perfectly illustrated my point. With your response, the classic "straining at a gnat, while swallowing a camel", you've clearly identified one such "cloud". |
And you've perfectly illustrated mine.
Why did you bother to harp on my use of the word "wishing" when you knew exactly what I was getting at?
I didn't harp on your use of the word, I asked you a simple question regarding that word.
QUOTE
Should you ever decide to stop playing games, then God is only a moment away. See you around...
In a moment no doubt...
"A fisher of men."
Boy what an arrogant fuksack. "A sniffer of sh!t" would be more accurate.
Boy what an arrogant fuksack. "A sniffer of sh!t" would be more accurate.
Whats the betting ol bonewank chirps up in a minute. 
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 20 2008, 08:38 AM)
Yep, still mopping the floor after all the sh!t like you that gets spilled in here. But I dont mind, my rewards are far greater than financial unlike yours and your payroll chums.
I see you got the weekend shift this week? Bummer eh? I hope its all worked out on a rota so its all fair for everyone?
heh! You try so hard, little it, but always come up short.....but maybe some day.....
I see you got the weekend shift this week? Bummer eh? I hope its all worked out on a rota so its all fair for everyone?
heh! You try so hard, little it, but always come up short.....but maybe some day.....
Bloy, you are yet again destroying another one of MPants threads, This is not fair or anything to do with science. Do you have something personal against the postings of MPants?
Please take your personal gripes to the pm stage and I'll see if I cant accomodate your problem.
Please take your personal gripes to the pm stage and I'll see if I cant accomodate your problem.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 20 2008, 09:58 AM)
Bloy, you are yet again destroying another one of MPants threads, This is not fair or anything to do with science. Do you have something personal against the postings of MPants?
Please take your personal gripes to the pm stage and I'll see if I cant accomodate your problem.
need I bring up YOUR posts as evidence that it is indeed YOU who destroy a somewhat sensible thread?
oh what the.. I'll do it...
neonom
Boy what an arrogant fuksack. "A sniffer of sh!t" would be more accurate.
Please take your personal gripes to the pm stage and I'll see if I cant accomodate your problem.
need I bring up YOUR posts as evidence that it is indeed YOU who destroy a somewhat sensible thread?
oh what the.. I'll do it...
QUOTE
neonom
Perfectly illustrates the point that your completly insane.
Perfectly illustrates the point that your completly insane.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| neonom Perfectly illustrates the point that your completly insane. |
neonom
Boy what an arrogant fuksack. "A sniffer of sh!t" would be more accurate.
QUOTE
neonom
Whats the betting ol bonewank chirps up in a minute.
Whats the betting ol bonewank chirps up in a minute.
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 20 2008, 04:12 PM)
need I bring up YOUR posts as evidence that it is indeed YOU who destroy a somewhat sensible thread?
oh what the.. I'll do it...
No you dont need to bring up anyone elses posting. You just need to learn how to control yourself, as I have shown you how, above. Now please just do it.
oh what the.. I'll do it...
No you dont need to bring up anyone elses posting. You just need to learn how to control yourself, as I have shown you how, above. Now please just do it.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 20 2008, 10:26 AM)
You just need to learn how to control yourself, as I have shown you how, above.
Hmmm... Come anyone.. is neonom's example of how to control oneself legitimate?
From sources I've obtained (but can't reveal), I've learned that neonom's answer to how to conduct/control oneself (himself) are derived from archaeological digs when evidence was uncovered that most neanderthals exercised such control over themselves.
Hmmm... Come anyone.. is neonom's example of how to control oneself legitimate?
From sources I've obtained (but can't reveal), I've learned that neonom's answer to how to conduct/control oneself (himself) are derived from archaeological digs when evidence was uncovered that most neanderthals exercised such control over themselves.
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 20 2008, 04:57 PM)
QUOTE (NEONOM @ Sep 20 2008+ 10:26 AM)
You just need to learn how to control yourself, as I have shown you how, above.
Hmmm... Come anyone.. is neonom's example of how to control oneself legitimate?
From sources I've obtained (but can't reveal), I've learned that neonom's answer to how to conduct/control oneself (himself) are derived from archaeological digs when evidence was uncovered that most neanderthals exercised such control over themselves.
Bhhhhpt! That was the coffee hitting the screen.
Bloy, can I believe my poor old eyes?
Did that neomoron thing just advocate 'self-control'....and actually presented itself as the role model for others to aspire to?
Please, someone stop it....it's too funny....my old sides can only take so much guffawing!
Oh what a day this is going to be.......for laughter unbounded! :-) :-) :-)
.
.
Bhhhhpt! That was the coffee hitting the screen.
No RseCrack that was your brain melting on the floor.
Yep......still Laughter unbounded round here! :-)
.
Yeah you can pretend but you dare not fart.
Hmmm... Come anyone.. is neonom's example of how to control oneself legitimate?
From sources I've obtained (but can't reveal), I've learned that neonom's answer to how to conduct/control oneself (himself) are derived from archaeological digs when evidence was uncovered that most neanderthals exercised such control over themselves.
Bhhhhpt! That was the coffee hitting the screen.
Bloy, can I believe my poor old eyes?
Did that neomoron thing just advocate 'self-control'....and actually presented itself as the role model for others to aspire to?
Please, someone stop it....it's too funny....my old sides can only take so much guffawing!
Oh what a day this is going to be.......for laughter unbounded! :-) :-) :-)
.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 21 2008, 03:25 AM)
Bhhhhpt! That was the coffee hitting the screen.
No RseCrack that was your brain melting on the floor.
.
Yep.....Laughter unbounded! :-)
.
.
Yep.....Laughter unbounded! :-)
.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 21 2008, 09:16 PM)
.
Yep.....Laughter unbounded! :-)
.
.
Alky/schizo unmedicated more like. hehehe.
Yep.....Laughter unbounded! :-)
.
.
Alky/schizo unmedicated more like. hehehe.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 21 2008, 09:30 PM)
Alky/schizo unmedicated more like. hehehe.
Yep......still Laughter unbounded round here! :-)
.
Yep......still Laughter unbounded round here! :-)
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 21 2008, 10:09 PM)
Yep......still Laughter unbounded round here! :-)
.
Yeah you can pretend but you dare not fart.
.
Laughter unbounded turns to despair unbounded at the realisation that this neomoronic 'master' has been given access to advanced technology in any form.
Knock Knock!
Hey, is anybody intelligent and responsible in there?
No......just igor and his self-love aid 'virtual creation' named 'neomoron'.
Like creator, like creation......dumb and dumber. Sad too. Pitiful......both of 'its'.
Prettyprettyneomoronwannacracker? :-)
.
.
Laughter unbounded turns to despair unbounded at the realisation that this neomoronic 'master' has been given access to advanced technology in any form.
Knock Knock!
Hey, is anybody intelligent and responsible in there?
No......just igor and his self-love aid 'virtual creation' named 'neomoron'.
Like creator, like creation......dumb and dumber. Sad too. Pitiful......both of 'its'.
Prettyprettyneomoronwannacracker? :-)
.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 22 2008, 01:24 AM)
.
Laughter unbounded turns to despair unbounded
turns to pretentiousness unbounded turns to drunkenwanking unbounded
Laughter unbounded turns to despair unbounded
turns to pretentiousness unbounded turns to drunkenwanking unbounded
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 22 2008, 03:10 AM)
turns to pretentiousness unbounded turns to drunkenwanking unbounded
Hah! Yah, RC, I've got to laugh at this assembly of words neuronum put together.
Ha ha.....
Hah! Yah, RC, I've got to laugh at this assembly of words neuronum put together.
Ha ha.....
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 22 2008, 09:10 AM)
turns to pretentiousness unbounded turns to drunkenwanking unbounded
turns to bloy in a cage imagining Lui with a cactus up hisarse
turns to bloy in a cage imagining Lui with a cactus up hisarse
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 22 2008, 01:27 PM)
turns to bloy in a cage imagining Lui with a cactus up hisarse
Good abuse, from an old fashioned science worshipper who hasn't heeded the signs. Looks like NEONOM cacked us yet again. But it was cyber spray, so hey it doesn't weigh.
Good abuse, from an old fashioned science worshipper who hasn't heeded the signs. Looks like NEONOM cacked us yet again. But it was cyber spray, so hey it doesn't weigh.
Over a page of this garbage and nothing actually worthy of reading. This sucks! Thanks for ruining this thread.
QUOTE (Steveo+Sep 22 2008, 01:43 PM)
Over a page of this garbage and nothing actually worthy of reading. This sucks! Thanks for ruining this thread.
Yeah, thanks bonebolox.
Yeah, thanks bonebolox.
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 22 2008, 12:10 PM)
Hah! Yah, RC, I've got to laugh at this assembly of words neuronum put together.
Ha ha.....
Yeah...sounds like that time it was up its own 'masters' butt instead of the other way round.
It still hasn't figured out the implications of "What goes around, comes around".
And it hasn't 'answered' this from me in my last post:
Behave better now, neo.
.
.
Lets hope you do now youve got all that childishness out of your system. But I'm guessing youll be back with more of the same crimes against the fist before long.
*OK MASTER*I WILL OBEY THE MASTER*THE MASTER MUST BE OBEYED*
(but the master is still a drunken fukstain hehehe)
Does your ventriloquist 'master' realise what his 'neo-dummy' is 'unwittingly' posting about him? Careful....if you keep betraying the truth about him like that, he might be forced to 'retire you with prejudice'. :-)
.
.
Does your ventriloquist 'master' realise what his 'neo-dummy' is 'unwittingly' posting about him? Careful....if you keep betraying the truth about him like that, he might be forced to 'retire you with prejudice'. :-)
.
.
I expect that if you ever sober up youll be able to make sense of it. And I'm sorry to have to keep betraying the truth about you but y'know Lui's got me thinking that we should all be a bit more honest, dont you think?
Feel free to take a break for strong coffee before you reply.
Soooo, neodummy....you put your 'virtual foot' squarely and firmly in your 'virtual mouth' and now try to distract from it by insinuating I also indulge in 'boozing' like your 'dummymaster'.
Won't work, neodummy/master.
If you really had a 'brain' of any sort, you'd know by now that my health problems arising from longstanding broad-spectrum allergies makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to indulge in the kind of boozing, drugging and smoking that your 'out of it' ventriloquist 'master' seems to be overdoing......as just betrayed by his 'neodummy' in 'its' previous post.
And if your 'master' still persists in claiming I am in admin, then he denies the logic of why I have not already removed the 'neodummy' negative feedback from MY feedback page.....along with all of Trouts uncomprehension-motivated knee-jerk negatives without reason.....not to mention all those from the 'Dallas et all stock-sockpuppet academy' graduates. :-)
Go on, neodummy, wake your poor sloshed slob of a 'neo-sock-master' from his stupor and let him see what you have 'accomplished' in his time absent from having his shaky 'delerium tremens' hand up his own neodummy.
What fun he will have 'disassembling' his failed 'creation'....with hands trembling with rage as well as delirium-tremens, no doubt. :-)
"What goes around, comes around". Figured that out yet?
.
.
There's no doubt that NeoDumpster is on a roll......of toilet paper.
There's no doubt that NeoDumpster is on a roll......of toilet paper.
No doubt at all. Its called physorg and its run by RseCracks. The only reason I'm still here is because the pretense of 'no moderators' would have to be exposed. You still havent answered the question Lui, who gave you the warning? Cos if your not also on the payroll, Lui Di Martino(not), then youve been Bloyed by the RseCracks m'boy.
"What goes around, comes around". Figured that out yet?
Yep. We're all just trying to confirm our own thoughts. Figured that out yet?
Soooo, neodummy....you put your 'virtual foot' squarely and firmly in your 'virtual mouth' and now try to distract from it by insinuating I also indulge in 'boozing' like your 'dummymaster'.
Won't work, neodummy/master.
If you really had a 'brain' of any sort, you'd know by now that my health problems arising from longstanding broad-spectrum allergies makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to indulge in the kind of boozing, drugging and smoking that your 'out of it' ventriloquist 'master' seems to be overdoing......as just betrayed by his 'neodummy' in 'its' previous post.
And if your 'master' still persists in claiming I am in admin, then he denies the logic of why I have not already removed the 'neodummy' negative feedback from MY feedback page.....along with all of Trouts uncomprehension-motivated knee-jerk negatives without reason.....not to mention all those from the 'Dallas et all stock-sockpuppet academy' graduates. :-)
Go on, neodummy, wake your poor sloshed slob of a 'neo-sock-master' from his stupor and let him see what you have 'accomplished' in his time absent from having his shaky 'delerium tremens' hand up his own neodummy.
What fun he will have 'disassembling' his failed 'creation'....with hands trembling with rage as well as delirium-tremens, no doubt. :-)
"What goes around, comes around". Figured that out yet?
.
.
No insinuation RseCrack. Its just a fact. Your drunk on your own sense of power. Figured that out yet, cos the whole world can see it.
Poorly evaded Lui.
Who gave you the warning?
It was Mr 72/37*24-14
It was Mr 72/37*24-14
Ah, you mean someone here that believes the same vacuous tardphlegm as you. Yes, that much is obvious. I want names and addresses.
Are you talking to an imaginary friend or yourself?
Oh neonominal, you ask questions that for any "normal" being would be self evident.
But then, there are no stupid questions...just loaded ones.
You're carrying a big load.
You're carrying a big load.
Sure am. What with all the godslurping cranks like you spewing their loads onto physics forums.
Thanks for your concern though. Now, if you want more abuse beg youfukker.
He only abuses himself by nurturing a life-long aberation within his character.
That's exactly right.
Ha ha.....
Yeah...sounds like that time it was up its own 'masters' butt instead of the other way round.
It still hasn't figured out the implications of "What goes around, comes around".
And it hasn't 'answered' this from me in my last post:
QUOTE (RC+)
Prettyprettyneomoronwannacracker? :-)
Prettyprettyneomoron!.....come and get it, that's a good prettypretty!
Behave better now, neo.
.
.
Prettyprettyneomoron!.....come and get it, that's a good prettypretty!
Behave better now, neo.
.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 23 2008, 02:38 AM)
Behave better now, neo.
.
.
Lets hope you do now youve got all that childishness out of your system. But I'm guessing youll be back with more of the same crimes against the fist before long.
.
It is in 'fly-by-dummy' mode again.....so it's not capable of processing the following two items I previously 'addressed' to it....
"What goes around, comes around"....remember?
and.....
"Prettyprettyneomoronwannacracker?"
Neither can it 'follow' my friendly advice to it....
"Behave better now, neo."
Let's see what eventuates when its 'master' wakes and sees these items.
.
.
It is in 'fly-by-dummy' mode again.....so it's not capable of processing the following two items I previously 'addressed' to it....
"What goes around, comes around"....remember?
and.....
"Prettyprettyneomoronwannacracker?"
Neither can it 'follow' my friendly advice to it....
"Behave better now, neo."
Let's see what eventuates when its 'master' wakes and sees these items.
.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 23 2008, 09:37 PM)
.
It is in 'fly-by-dummy' mode again.....so it's not capable of processing the following two items I previously 'addressed' to it....
"What goes around, comes around"....remember?
and.....
"Prettyprettyneomoronwannacracker?"
Neither can it 'follow' my friendly advice to it....
"Behave better now, neo."
Let's see what eventuates when its 'master' wakes and sees these items.
.
.
Good morning RseCrack, set for another day of semi-comatose pretentious drooling?
All I can do after your masterful display is paraphrase your godslurping bottombuddy Bloy
It is in 'fly-by-dummy' mode again.....so it's not capable of processing the following two items I previously 'addressed' to it....
"What goes around, comes around"....remember?
and.....
"Prettyprettyneomoronwannacracker?"
Neither can it 'follow' my friendly advice to it....
"Behave better now, neo."
Let's see what eventuates when its 'master' wakes and sees these items.
.
.
Good morning RseCrack, set for another day of semi-comatose pretentious drooling?
All I can do after your masterful display is paraphrase your godslurping bottombuddy Bloy
QUOTE
Bloy
Posted: Dec 12 2006, 10:00 PM
we are helping to prevent those not yet mature enough from grasping the situation wrongly.
Posted: Dec 12 2006, 10:00 PM
we are helping to prevent those not yet mature enough from grasping the situation wrongly.
.
It's still in fly-by-dummy' mode, obviously....since it hasn't been able to 'process' those items and advice. Sleep on, 'master dummy'. :-)
.
.
It's still in fly-by-dummy' mode, obviously....since it hasn't been able to 'process' those items and advice. Sleep on, 'master dummy'. :-)
.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 23 2008, 10:02 PM)
.
It's still in fly-by-dummy' mode, obviously....since it hasn't been able to 'process' those items and advice. Sleep on, 'master dummy'. :-)
.
.
*OK MASTER*I WILL OBEY THE MASTER*THE MASTER MUST BE OBEYED*
(but the master is still a drunken fukstain hehehe)
It's still in fly-by-dummy' mode, obviously....since it hasn't been able to 'process' those items and advice. Sleep on, 'master dummy'. :-)
.
.
*OK MASTER*I WILL OBEY THE MASTER*THE MASTER MUST BE OBEYED*
(but the master is still a drunken fukstain hehehe)
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 23 2008, 10:10 PM)
*OK MASTER*I WILL OBEY THE MASTER*THE MASTER MUST BE OBEYED*
(but the master is still a drunken fukstain hehehe)
Does your ventriloquist 'master' realise what his 'neo-dummy' is 'unwittingly' posting about him? Careful....if you keep betraying the truth about him like that, he might be forced to 'retire you with prejudice'. :-)
.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 23 2008, 10:29 PM)
Does your ventriloquist 'master' realise what his 'neo-dummy' is 'unwittingly' posting about him? Careful....if you keep betraying the truth about him like that, he might be forced to 'retire you with prejudice'. :-)
.
.
I expect that if you ever sober up youll be able to make sense of it. And I'm sorry to have to keep betraying the truth about you but y'know Lui's got me thinking that we should all be a bit more honest, dont you think?
Feel free to take a break for strong coffee before you reply.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 23 2008, 10:58 PM)
I expect that if you ever sober up youll be able to make sense of it. And I'm sorry to have to keep betraying the truth about you but y'know Lui's got me thinking that we should all be a bit more honest, dont you think?
Feel free to take a break for strong coffee before you reply.
Soooo, neodummy....you put your 'virtual foot' squarely and firmly in your 'virtual mouth' and now try to distract from it by insinuating I also indulge in 'boozing' like your 'dummymaster'.
Won't work, neodummy/master.
If you really had a 'brain' of any sort, you'd know by now that my health problems arising from longstanding broad-spectrum allergies makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to indulge in the kind of boozing, drugging and smoking that your 'out of it' ventriloquist 'master' seems to be overdoing......as just betrayed by his 'neodummy' in 'its' previous post.
And if your 'master' still persists in claiming I am in admin, then he denies the logic of why I have not already removed the 'neodummy' negative feedback from MY feedback page.....along with all of Trouts uncomprehension-motivated knee-jerk negatives without reason.....not to mention all those from the 'Dallas et all stock-sockpuppet academy' graduates. :-)
Go on, neodummy, wake your poor sloshed slob of a 'neo-sock-master' from his stupor and let him see what you have 'accomplished' in his time absent from having his shaky 'delerium tremens' hand up his own neodummy.
What fun he will have 'disassembling' his failed 'creation'....with hands trembling with rage as well as delirium-tremens, no doubt. :-)
"What goes around, comes around". Figured that out yet?
.
.
Feel free to take a break for strong coffee before you reply.
Soooo, neodummy....you put your 'virtual foot' squarely and firmly in your 'virtual mouth' and now try to distract from it by insinuating I also indulge in 'boozing' like your 'dummymaster'.
Won't work, neodummy/master.
If you really had a 'brain' of any sort, you'd know by now that my health problems arising from longstanding broad-spectrum allergies makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to indulge in the kind of boozing, drugging and smoking that your 'out of it' ventriloquist 'master' seems to be overdoing......as just betrayed by his 'neodummy' in 'its' previous post.
And if your 'master' still persists in claiming I am in admin, then he denies the logic of why I have not already removed the 'neodummy' negative feedback from MY feedback page.....along with all of Trouts uncomprehension-motivated knee-jerk negatives without reason.....not to mention all those from the 'Dallas et all stock-sockpuppet academy' graduates. :-)
Go on, neodummy, wake your poor sloshed slob of a 'neo-sock-master' from his stupor and let him see what you have 'accomplished' in his time absent from having his shaky 'delerium tremens' hand up his own neodummy.
What fun he will have 'disassembling' his failed 'creation'....with hands trembling with rage as well as delirium-tremens, no doubt. :-)
"What goes around, comes around". Figured that out yet?
.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 23 2008, 11:24 PM)
Soooo, neodummy....you put your 'virtual foot' squarely and firmly in your 'virtual mouth' and now try to distract from it by insinuating I also indulge in 'boozing' like your 'dummymaster'.
Won't work, neodummy/master.
If you really had a 'brain' of any sort, you'd know by now that my health problems arising from longstanding broad-spectrum allergies makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to indulge in the kind of boozing, drugging and smoking that your 'out of it' ventriloquist 'master' seems to be overdoing......as just betrayed by his 'neodummy' in 'its' previous post.
And if your 'master' still persists in claiming I am in admin, then he denies the logic of why I have not already removed the 'neodummy' negative feedback from MY feedback page.....along with all of Trouts uncomprehension-motivated knee-jerk negatives without reason.....not to mention all those from the 'Dallas et all stock-sockpuppet academy' graduates. :-)
Go on, neodummy, wake your poor sloshed slob of a 'neo-sock-master' from his stupor and let him see what you have 'accomplished' in his time absent from having his shaky 'delerium tremens' hand up his own neodummy.
What fun he will have 'disassembling' his failed 'creation'....with hands trembling with rage as well as delirium-tremens, no doubt. :-)
"What goes around, comes around". Figured that out yet?
.
.
There's no doubt that NeoDumpster is on a roll......of toilet paper.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 24 2008, 12:01 AM)
There's no doubt that NeoDumpster is on a roll......of toilet paper.
No doubt at all. Its called physorg and its run by RseCracks.
The only reason I'm still here is because the pretense of 'no moderators' would have to be exposed. You still havent answered the question Lui, who gave you the warning? Cos if your not also on the payroll, Lui Di Martino(not), then youve been Bloyed by the RseCracks m'boy. "What goes around, comes around". Figured that out yet?
Yep. We're all just trying to confirm our own thoughts. Figured that out yet?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 23 2008, 11:24 PM)
Soooo, neodummy....you put your 'virtual foot' squarely and firmly in your 'virtual mouth' and now try to distract from it by insinuating I also indulge in 'boozing' like your 'dummymaster'.
Won't work, neodummy/master.
If you really had a 'brain' of any sort, you'd know by now that my health problems arising from longstanding broad-spectrum allergies makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to indulge in the kind of boozing, drugging and smoking that your 'out of it' ventriloquist 'master' seems to be overdoing......as just betrayed by his 'neodummy' in 'its' previous post.
And if your 'master' still persists in claiming I am in admin, then he denies the logic of why I have not already removed the 'neodummy' negative feedback from MY feedback page.....along with all of Trouts uncomprehension-motivated knee-jerk negatives without reason.....not to mention all those from the 'Dallas et all stock-sockpuppet academy' graduates. :-)
Go on, neodummy, wake your poor sloshed slob of a 'neo-sock-master' from his stupor and let him see what you have 'accomplished' in his time absent from having his shaky 'delerium tremens' hand up his own neodummy.
What fun he will have 'disassembling' his failed 'creation'....with hands trembling with rage as well as delirium-tremens, no doubt. :-)
"What goes around, comes around". Figured that out yet?
.
.
No insinuation RseCrack. Its just a fact. Your drunk on your own sense of power. Figured that out yet, cos the whole world can see it.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 24 2008, 09:49 AM)
No doubt at all. Its called physorg and its run by RseCracks. The only reason I'm still here is because the pretense of 'no moderators' would have to be exposed. You still havent answered the question Lui, who gave you the warning? Cos if your not also on the payroll, Lui Di Martino(not), then youve been Bloyed by the RseCracks m'boy.
"What goes around, comes around". Figured that out yet?
Yep. We're all just trying to confirm our own thoughts. Figured that out yet?
Do you even know what you're driveling on about? There was obviously more moderation in the past, and obviously none nowadays. So, you got no more reason for being here now.
The only reason I'm still here is because the pretense of 'no moderators' would have to be exposed. You still havent answered the question Lui, who gave you the warning? Cos if your not also on the payroll, Lui Di Martino(not), then youve been Bloyed by the RseCracks m'boy. "What goes around, comes around". Figured that out yet?
Yep. We're all just trying to confirm our own thoughts. Figured that out yet?
Do you even know what you're driveling on about? There was obviously more moderation in the past, and obviously none nowadays. So, you got no more reason for being here now.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 24 2008, 12:30 PM)
Do you even know what you're driveling on about? There was obviously more moderation in the past, and obviously none nowadays. So, you got no more reason for being here now.
Limp, as expected. Youve only had a bonefukker account since 20th july.
Limp, as expected. Youve only had a bonefukker account since 20th july.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 24 2008, 12:36 PM)
Limp, as expected. Youve only had a bonefukker account since 20th july.
Well you came here on 2nd september knowing all about it that's for sure.
Shouldn't you be out camping with the girl scouts Neodump?
Well you came here on 2nd september knowing all about it that's for sure.
Shouldn't you be out camping with the girl scouts Neodump?
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 24 2008, 01:03 PM)
Well you came here on 2nd september knowing all about it that's for sure.
Shouldn't you be out camping with the girl scouts Neodump?
Poorly evaded Lui.
Who gave you the warning?
Shouldn't you be out camping with the girl scouts Neodump?
Poorly evaded Lui.Who gave you the warning?
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 24 2008, 02:24 PM)
Poorly evaded Lui.Who gave you the warning?
It was Mr 72/37*24-14
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 24 2008, 03:18 PM)
It was Mr 72/37*24-14
Ah, you mean someone here that believes the same vacuous tardphlegm as you. Yes, that much is obvious. I want names and addresses.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 24 2008, 03:49 AM)
The only reason I'm still here is because the pretense of 'no moderators' would have to be exposed.
Well, well, well. It would be beneficial for all here if you made an attempt to increase the numbers. Your ONLY reason for still being here shows just how deficient your synapses are in achieving endomitosis.
Well, well, well. It would be beneficial for all here if you made an attempt to increase the numbers. Your ONLY reason for still being here shows just how deficient your synapses are in achieving endomitosis.
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 24 2008, 03:23 PM)
Well, well, well. It would be beneficial for all here if you made an attempt to increase the numbers. Your ONLY reason for still being here shows just how deficient your synapses are in achieving endomitosis.
If you want me to keep abusing you your going to have to learn how to beg like the pisslurping dog you are.
If you want me to keep abusing you your going to have to learn how to beg like the pisslurping dog you are.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 24 2008, 09:30 AM)
If you want me to keep abusing you your going to have to learn how to beg like the pisslurping dog you are.
Another failure in neuronumnut's rationality.....He thinks he is "abusing" me.
He only abuses himself by nurturing a life-long aberation within his character.
Another failure in neuronumnut's rationality.....He thinks he is "abusing" me.
He only abuses himself by nurturing a life-long aberation within his character.
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 24 2008, 03:34 PM)
Another failure in neuronumnut's rationality.....He thinks he is "abusing" me.
He only abuses himself by nurturing a life-long aberation within his character.
Are you talking to an imaginary friend or yourself?
He only abuses himself by nurturing a life-long aberation within his character.
Are you talking to an imaginary friend or yourself?
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 24 2008, 09:38 AM)
Are you talking to an imaginary friend or yourself?
Oh neonominal, you ask questions that for any "normal" being would be self evident.
But then, there are no stupid questions...just loaded ones.
You're carrying a big load.
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 24 2008, 03:45 PM)
You're carrying a big load.
Sure am. What with all the godslurping cranks like you spewing their loads onto physics forums.
Thanks for your concern though. Now, if you want more abuse beg youfukker.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 24 2008, 09:59 AM)
Sure am. What with all the godslurping cranks like you spewing their loads onto physics forums. Thanks for your concern though. Now, if you want more abuse beg youfukker.
I beg to differ....
Remember that vacuous area on your shoulders? It malfunctions... There seems to be some directives missing in connection to your fingers. Your output yields negative returns . Now that is at least consistent.
Thanks for your concern though. Now, if you want more abuse beg youfukker. I beg to differ....
Remember that vacuous area on your shoulders? It malfunctions... There seems to be some directives missing in connection to your fingers. Your output yields negative returns . Now that is at least consistent.
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 24 2008, 03:34 PM)
He only abuses himself by nurturing a life-long aberation within his character.
That's exactly right.
QUOTE (Boneidol+Sep 24 2008, 04:20 PM)
That's exactly right.
Surely you mean "Thats exactly right, my creamed up ID supporting fukbuddy." ?
Hey Lui, thats quite a short tea break you get here isnt it? Youd be better off as a bog cleaner, like me.
Surely you mean "Thats exactly right, my creamed up ID supporting fukbuddy." ?
Hey Lui, thats quite a short tea break you get here isnt it? Youd be better off as a bog cleaner, like me.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 24 2008, 10:25 AM)
Surely you mean "Thats exactly right, my creamed up ID supporting fukbuddy." ?
heh.. Now neuronumnuts has brought out his BIG guns with his "show" of how to exude a lofty use of both adjectives and nouns to get his imagined daily quota of digs into his abyss.
heh.. Now neuronumnuts has brought out his BIG guns with his "show" of how to exude a lofty use of both adjectives and nouns to get his imagined daily quota of digs into his abyss.
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 24 2008, 04:37 PM)
heh.. Now neuronumnuts has brought out his BIG guns with his "show" of how to exude a lofty use of both adjectives and nouns to get his imagined daily quota of digs into his abyss.
Said Bloy to his imaginary friend/self.
Said Bloy to his imaginary friend/self.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 24 2008, 10:40 AM)
Said Bloy to his imaginary friend/self.
Well, well. neonom's caustic temperament seems rendered harmless enough.....for the moment.
Well, well. neonom's caustic temperament seems rendered harmless enough.....for the moment.
.
Obviously the neomoron dummy/master fails to process the fact that often there are tens/hundreds of GUESTS viewing, not to mention ANONYMOUSLY logged-in MEMBERS who are content to just laugh and laugh at 'its' futile flailings amidst a sea of malice aforethought 'programmed' into 'it' by its unfortunate creator, the 'master dummy'.
Apparently 'guests' and 'anonymous' are yet two more concepts beyond its 'grasp'....hence its lame 'conclusions/accusations'.
Bargain basement 'neural circuits', plus 'master-boozer/drugger' stuporific stupidity and 'programmed in' malicious character traits, are a 'dummy-heady' combination!
Only scrap value left for the neodummy. Two cents. Maybe. :-)
OH...and it still hasn't figured out "What goes around, comes around." Obviously. Sad case.
.
.
.
Obviously the neomoron dummy/master fails to process the fact that often there are tens/hundreds of GUESTS viewing, not to mention ANONYMOUSLY logged-in MEMBERS who are content to just laugh and laugh at 'its' futile flailings amidst a sea of malice aforethought 'programmed' into 'it' by its unfortunate creator, the 'master dummy'.
Apparently 'guests' and 'anonymous' are yet two more concepts beyond its 'grasp'....hence its lame 'conclusions/accusations'.
Bargain basement 'neural circuits', plus 'master-boozer/drugger' stuporific stupidity and 'programmed in' malicious character traits, are a 'dummy-heady' combination!
Only scrap value left for the neodummy. Two cents. Maybe. :-)
OH...and it still hasn't figured out "What goes around, comes around." Obviously. Sad case.
.
.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 24 2008, 09:50 PM)
.
Obviously the neomoron dummy/master fails to process the fact that often there are tens/hundreds of GUESTS viewing, not to mention ANONYMOUSLY logged-in MEMBERS who are content to just laugh and laugh at 'its' futile flailings amidst a sea of malice aforethought 'programmed' into 'it' by its unfortunate creator, the 'master dummy'.
Apparently 'guests' and 'anonymous' are yet two more concepts beyond its 'grasp'....hence its lame 'conclusions/accusations'.
Bargain basement 'neural circuits', plus 'master-boozer/drugger' stuporific stupidity and 'programmed in' malicious character traits, are a 'dummy-heady' combination!
Only scrap value left for the neodummy. Two cents. Maybe. :-)
OH...and it still hasn't figured out "What goes around, comes around." Obviously. Sad case.
.
.
.
Yeah but apart from that you love me right?
Obviously the neomoron dummy/master fails to process the fact that often there are tens/hundreds of GUESTS viewing, not to mention ANONYMOUSLY logged-in MEMBERS who are content to just laugh and laugh at 'its' futile flailings amidst a sea of malice aforethought 'programmed' into 'it' by its unfortunate creator, the 'master dummy'.
Apparently 'guests' and 'anonymous' are yet two more concepts beyond its 'grasp'....hence its lame 'conclusions/accusations'.
Bargain basement 'neural circuits', plus 'master-boozer/drugger' stuporific stupidity and 'programmed in' malicious character traits, are a 'dummy-heady' combination!
Only scrap value left for the neodummy. Two cents. Maybe. :-)
OH...and it still hasn't figured out "What goes around, comes around." Obviously. Sad case.
.
.
.
Yeah but apart from that you love me right?
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 24 2008, 11:19 PM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Sep 24 2008, 09:50 PM)
.
Obviously the neomoron dummy/master fails to process the fact that often there are tens/hundreds of GUESTS viewing, not to mention ANONYMOUSLY logged-in MEMBERS who are content to just laugh and laugh at 'its' futile flailings amidst a sea of malice aforethought 'programmed' into 'it' by its unfortunate creator, the 'master dummy'.
Apparently 'guests' and 'anonymous' are yet two more concepts beyond its 'grasp'....hence its lame 'conclusions/accusations'.
Bargain basement 'neural circuits', plus 'master-boozer/drugger' stuporific stupidity and 'programmed in' malicious character traits, are a 'dummy-heady' combination!
Only scrap value left for the neodummy. Two cents. Maybe. :-)
OH...and it still hasn't figured out "What goes around, comes around." Obviously. Sad case.
.
.
.
Yeah but apart from that you love me right?
But of course! Because I'm a nice guy.....FOR REAL.
The only reason I have been pointing to its/your failing strategy is to get it/you to finally understand the implications for EVERYONE in the truism:
"What goes around, comes around".
See? You brought my involvement upon your own head because it/you had apparently not yet learned what those implications meant for IT/YOU......as well as everyone else.
Other than that, let your posts be your judge from now on....and I shall be 'watching with a friendly eye' how you evolve in the maturity/self-responsibility stakes.
It is not expensive to be 'nice' to others...it is an 'investment' in the future times when YOU wish others to be nice to YOU. What goes around really does come around....be it 'nasty' OR 'nice'.
Cheers!......and here's hoping for the best in continuing improvement in your 'humanity condition' vis-a-vis everyone else here. No grudges; no hard feelings; nothing but COMMON HUMANITY to which we are ALL entiltled UNLESS we throw it away OURSELVES...in which case, then asking for OTHERS' 'pity' will come across as a somewhat tricky and transparent ploy.
Keep trying genuinely, and you'll make it better sooner, everyone!
RC.
.
Obviously the neomoron dummy/master fails to process the fact that often there are tens/hundreds of GUESTS viewing, not to mention ANONYMOUSLY logged-in MEMBERS who are content to just laugh and laugh at 'its' futile flailings amidst a sea of malice aforethought 'programmed' into 'it' by its unfortunate creator, the 'master dummy'.
Apparently 'guests' and 'anonymous' are yet two more concepts beyond its 'grasp'....hence its lame 'conclusions/accusations'.
Bargain basement 'neural circuits', plus 'master-boozer/drugger' stuporific stupidity and 'programmed in' malicious character traits, are a 'dummy-heady' combination!
Only scrap value left for the neodummy. Two cents. Maybe. :-)
OH...and it still hasn't figured out "What goes around, comes around." Obviously. Sad case.
.
.
.
Yeah but apart from that you love me right?
But of course! Because I'm a nice guy.....FOR REAL.
The only reason I have been pointing to its/your failing strategy is to get it/you to finally understand the implications for EVERYONE in the truism:
"What goes around, comes around".
See? You brought my involvement upon your own head because it/you had apparently not yet learned what those implications meant for IT/YOU......as well as everyone else.
Other than that, let your posts be your judge from now on....and I shall be 'watching with a friendly eye' how you evolve in the maturity/self-responsibility stakes.
It is not expensive to be 'nice' to others...it is an 'investment' in the future times when YOU wish others to be nice to YOU. What goes around really does come around....be it 'nasty' OR 'nice'.
Cheers!......and here's hoping for the best in continuing improvement in your 'humanity condition' vis-a-vis everyone else here. No grudges; no hard feelings; nothing but COMMON HUMANITY to which we are ALL entiltled UNLESS we throw it away OURSELVES...in which case, then asking for OTHERS' 'pity' will come across as a somewhat tricky and transparent ploy.
Keep trying genuinely, and you'll make it better sooner, everyone!
RC.
.
Yeah? What about pretending to be 'nice'? You seem to be the master of that. Your a lying sh!t that encourages cranks and godspewers onto a physics forum. You at least have access to the Admin here and yet you continue to deny it even though it must be obviously true. So one lie leads to another and now you have a whole elaborate mountain to cover up.
"What comes around goes around". YOU ARE NOT EXEMPT. But your feelings of superiority over others helps you pretend to yourself that you are along with a few others of the same attitude here. Your condecension is in every post you make. Your a fake.
"What comes around goes around". YOU ARE NOT EXEMPT. But your feelings of superiority over others helps you pretend to yourself that you are along with a few others of the same attitude here. Your condecension is in every post you make. Your a fake.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 25 2008, 03:12 AM)
Yeah? What about pretending to be 'nice'? You seem to be the master of that. Your a lying sh!t that encourages cranks and godspewers onto a physics forum. You at least have access to the Admin here and yet you continue to deny it even though it must be obviously true. So one lie leads to another and now you have a whole elaborate mountain to cover up.
"What comes around goes around". YOU ARE NOT EXEMPT. But your feelings of superiority over others helps you pretend to yourself that you are along with a few others of the same attitude here. Your condecension is in every post you make. Your a fake.
But neonom, isn't anything superior to you? ....I mean, you being a "rake" and all that falls inferior to and below it.?
"What comes around goes around". YOU ARE NOT EXEMPT. But your feelings of superiority over others helps you pretend to yourself that you are along with a few others of the same attitude here. Your condecension is in every post you make. Your a fake.
But neonom, isn't anything superior to you? ....I mean, you being a "rake" and all that falls inferior to and below it.?
QUOTE (Bloy+Sep 25 2008, 12:17 PM)
But neonom, isn't anything superior to you? ....I mean, you being a "rake" and all that falls inferior to and below it.?
No more questions until you beg. You are the weeping sore on Humanities cancerous genitalia, even though you think your a large penis.
No more questions until you beg. You are the weeping sore on Humanities cancerous genitalia, even though you think your a large penis.
QUOTE (NEONOM+Sep 25 2008, 08:36 AM)
No more questions until you beg. You are the weeping sore on Humanities cancerous genitalia, even though you think your a large penis.
I don't have to beg, neuronumb, you dish out your "perceived" abuse without request. . You'll have to up your output before you get close to what you consider abuse (of me).
I don't have to beg, neuronumb, you dish out your "perceived" abuse without request.
. You'll have to up your output before you get close to what you consider abuse (of me).
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.