Phase transitions! Versus bifurcation theory?
Lots of interesting talk tonight. What if the universe is fundamentally discrete on all fronts (space, time, matter, energy), are incompleteness theorems, currently stated in terms of the ability to construct real numbers, still valid?
They would still be necessary probably to describe quantum states, even though we could not measure those states as being what we describe them as.
Is there any real danger of ZFC being inconsistent? And if it proved inconsistent, is there any chance of the halting problem or relativization proofs being invalidated? Seems the answer is no. I'm pretty sure the undecidability of the halting problem can be shown without any information about the incompleteness theorems.
Could we perhaps axiomize our system even more fundamentally? Like: axiomatic system must have consistency, as well as (insert other basic properties here). Could the universe be constructed with an infinite set of axioms? What might that imply?
The one that never steps back.
We don't mean the same.
Do high-tech people lose their jobs in this sort of thing?
Look what we've done?
These are kind of fun: averageness, youthfulness, baby face, cuteness. Ha ha: "A prototype for a 'child woman' is Jean Harlow."
These are interesting, related to global warming.
Kisses. No. Though really serious things have happened for a kiss.
Drunk animals are funny.
Science ought to open up the war between creationism and science, by pointing out that creationists are not just incorrectly challenging the Theory of Evolution, but also the Theory of Abiogensis, the Theory of Geology, the Theory of Cosmology, the Theory of Radioactivity, and all of the empirical and mathematical evidence supporting these theories provided by the fields of Biology, Genetics, Astronomy, Chemistry, and Physics.
The Large Hadron Rap.
Neat photo(s). STOP THIS ALREADY!
Kind of mean. Rightly so?
I need to learn: Hamilton's equations, Hamiltonian (quantum mechanics), Lagrangian mechanics, Landau theory, tons of other stuff...
I should watch more of Da Ali G show
Nothing's going to change my world.
Where are you?
SARAH PALIN is PRO-LIFE, unless it is HER DAUGHTER in which case she is PRO-CHOICE.
Katie Couric has to ask every question several times, because Sarah Palin is surprisingly good at dodging questions. They are being forced to abandon their base or look foolish. NO WAIT! I am WRONG! She is using terminology that will nod to the severely religious, without displaying public preaching, which is known to piss people like me off.
She did it again! A while back I wondered:
When she said, "...I'm not going to disagree with the point that they make, that, man's activities, can be, attributed, to, changes" (at about 1 minute left)—was she misspeaking, completely ignorant of the actual situation, or, (hopefully the most unlikely), so uninformed of science that she has failed to comprehend simple causality? (It is difficult to imagine her being that ignorant.)
Now during the debate she actually said, "I'm not one to attribute every man—activity of man, to changes in the climate." (00:29:29)
So then she explains that she doesn't want to talk about what the causes were, but rather we want to clean up this planet. She fails to understand that in order to 'clean up the planet' and simultaneously 'not take a(nother) dump on the economy' it would be beneficial to know what caused it, and what is and is not a good approach to fixing it.
Listen, the danger of religion is exactly the danger in not learning from one's mistakes. The reason the plague killed so many people was because we attributed the existence of the plague to mystical beliefs, such as god punishing us for ridiculous reasons.
Could the ground be used to filter out dirty chemicals from coal plants? Like a smokestack that went deep underground into a network of pipes maybe?
I'm waiting for someone to find me and take your place.
I'm the nicest asshole you'll ever meet.
"Grieve for the lost and the lonely."
Holy crap, I'm going as an owl pellet this year.
AIN'T TALKIN BOUT LOVE.
My love is rotten to the core.
If you want to see if your religious beliefs hold contradictions, you can take this test, though I disagreed strongly with their conclusions. Don't read any further if you don't want my disagreements to ruin the test for you.
Similarly this test looks for contradictions in a broader range of philosophical views. I had a disagreement with that too, though I didn't explain it here.
I need to know: am I somehow rationalizing my beliefs to appear consistent, or do I have a valid argument here? I took two "direct hits" and one "bite the bullet".
Here is their analysis:
Direct Hit 1
You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.
The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
The second question was phrased such that there was no evidence for or against god, while the first question was more implying that we have searched for the loch ness monster, but simply not found anything. This was phrased as an absence of evidence, but in obtaining a null result is really evidence of absence. Evidence of absence IS evidence, and thus conclusions can be drawn. Absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of anything, it is absent! And therefore conclusions CAN NOT be drawn!
Direct Hit 2
You've just taken a direct hit! You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.
"...but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything."When I read this, I take the word 'anything' to mean, 'anything physically possible', whereas they apparently meant 'literally anything'. As a strict physicalist, I completely reject the notion that the universe is fundamentally lawless, which would be required for some being to do 'literally anything'. So if you want to ask me about doing literally anything, you need to phrase it as such. Violating mathematical proof would be one example I would cite as truly impossible (as well as most anything that appears to violate certain foundational principles of modern science, such as superluminal communication). This is why I once came up with the notions of 'strong' and 'weak' omnipotence, and claimed that the silly magical ideas of deities would be defined as 'strongly omnipotent', while creatures that actually exist, and actually can do 'anything' that is physically possible would be 'weakly omnipotent'. (Turing machines that can do physical work in addition to mathematical computation?) I believe the human race, taken as a single entity, constitutes a weakly omnipotent being. It seems that the only walls we will ever be forced against will force any intelligence into the same corner. With the aid of our technology, we are 'unstoppable', at least as far as something can go in being unstoppable.
Bitten Bullet 1
You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.
You chose to bite the bullet.
And here are my retort:
Bite the bullet (the simplest):
Yes, I require more evidence for the existence of god than evolution. This boils down to the dictum made famous by Bill Nye, who was a student (apparently?) of Carl Sagan's, who said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!". Simply, the hypothesis of god is quite extraordinary, demanding an incredible level of evidence. Evolution on the hand is a quite simple claim, nearly self evident, mostly because it is a principle that influences every aspect of every known life form. Simply put, it permeates the organic world.
Fucking Navy Seals, fucking bunch of elitists, thats what they are. No, wait, I'm sorry, it is good that they are elite, they have a terribly challenging jobs, and not just anybody can do it. The president on the other hand, fucking elitist democrats, wanting some Harvard educated candidate... assholes! What do they think they're doing? Running a complicated government or something?
And so it begins!
While I was trying to flush out what exactly a 'bible believer' is, I stumbled across this post and then this post too, both by the self proclaimed bible believer. I wrote this comment, but it is currently awaiting moderation, (think he will post it?):
I think the original wall was not [intended to be] one way, but rather to protect both government and religion from one another. What makes you think Christians are being kept out of American government?
According to this Gallup poll, while a Catholic has a 95% “vote for”, 4% “would not vote for” rating, an atheist has a 45% “vote for”, and a 53% “would not vote for” rating. It is identically the opposite of Christianity barred from government: while
You are correct to say that Christians are allowed to participate in American government, but Christianity should play NO PART in American government, since that would infringe upon the Bill of Rights (and The First Amendment to The Constitution).
According to the wikipedia article, List of United States Presidential religious affiliations:The vast majority of the presidents can be characterized as Christians, at least by formal membership. Some were Unitarian, or Quaker, or unaffiliated with a specific religious body. Some are thought have have been deists, or irreligious. No president thus far has been a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or an adherent of any other specifically non-Christian religion.
So please do not claim that Christianity is somehow persecuted by American government. I assure you that the atheists have it much harder.
Assuming that you could somehow convince me a god with influence over physical reality does exist, I would still not like it ('him'). I would still hate that 'being' with all of my own, and I would still reject all praise and worshiping of that creature. It would be a vile entity, petty beyond any human potential, accomplice to not just the most grand, but the totality of 'evil' throughout history, and accountable for all human, as well as other creaturely suffering. Completely unworthy of my time, energy, and admiration. CHRISTIANS arguing that they are being suppressed? FUCK YOU, okay? 100% of every American President has been christian. 100% of every American Vice President has been christian. You think YOU have a hard time being represented? In the entire history of the United States, there has been only ONE publicly admitted atheist. So PLEASE do not cry suppression.
all the best.