| cisco systems |
| ||
i never liked explanations for those other dimensions. that simple one the columbia professor (don't know his name) uses in the Nova special about string theory: if we look at a cable from a distance, it looks like a simple 1d line. But if you're an ant on that cable, you can spiral around it and see it's obviously not just a 1d line. however, even those small dimensions we can't "see" but they try to explain away as vanishingly small curves, fit into the normal 3d we're used to. you're still moving up, down, left, and right, even if you are a unimaginably small ant moving on those "cables" or whatever. but this has to do with your point: there are things the human mind can't conceptualize. |
| impressionable |
| ||
|
i think the killings in the OT is to reiturate the notion that the wages of sin is death. when god kills, it is not murder, it is justice? |
| Comma |
| ||
|
"would be need[ed] for the now highly-[supported]" I should be reminded to not post with a hangover.. Brian Greene is the professor you're talking about - http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_greene_on_string_theory.html Yeah, that given explanation isn't the best. Related to that, but off-topic, I'd say many of the people that try to refute the basics of evolution are part that sample of the population that just aren't "capable of understanding," so they go to what they were able to learn.. in sunday school |
| Cinco Brand |
| ||
|
Is the father getting the chair or something else? |
| Billy the Kid |
| ||
this is not true. subatomic particles behave randomly and their position can only be predicted with some level of probability.[/quote] Fair enough. It is true that I simplified earlier. However, the fact that there is a probabilistic component to the future paths of particles does not seem to really impact the core issue raised. That is, the notion that anyone has any such thing as a free will, that there are free choices made, etc is all 100% illusory. All of it, everyone, and again every thought and action taken are determined by physical laws (including the random events at the subatomic level). In particular we (the posters here) each have no real choice in this discussion - every keystroke is determined by physical laws and randomness. Indeed "we" don't really exist in the commonly understood sense of beings possessing a free will. I would posit that no one ( not 'Noone' :D ) is truly capable of believing this about themselves. |
| Guppy |
| ||
|
I came back after finding the subject had been switched to science (I love me some science!).
Billy, I'm sorry, but the randomness of electrons has absolutely nothing to do with our actions. Even physiology at the level of proteins and enzymes has essentially nothing to do with quantum mechanics. The laws of quantum mechanics don't even apply to anything above the quantum level, and it is really only the electrons which are moving around nuclei (in solid state at least), so the atoms/molecules themselves aren't even moving at all (vibrating I guess). The firing of neurons in our brain is not due IN ANY WAY to the randomness of particles, thus none of our actions are either. The uncertainty principle and probability says that if every atom and subatomic particle in my body were to move in the same direction at the same time, an almost infinitely small probability, I could suddenly move somewhere else. In order for the laws of quantum mechanics to determine everything I do, this would have to happen ever nanosecond of every moment of time. Instead, all these particles are vibrating and swirling randomly in a manner that cancels out, thus they have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on a scale larger than the quantum level. I don't know how to say it any more plainly. As for string theory, that's something I don't think anyone who's not a theoretical physicist or mathematician should seriously try to understand. I've an entry level education in physics and have read Brian Greene's book, "The Elegant Unviverse," and string theory is so far over my head it's hard to even comprehend the basics of the dumbed down non mathematical version, though I did learn a lot from Greene's book. The "donut" and "garden hose" explanations for 11 dimensions are pretty poor ones. Greene explains it better in his book, but even he admits it's extremely difficult even for theoretical physicists to fully conceptualize a lot of what they do. It sounds to me like an ass load of ridiculously complex math to come up with things that can't even be explained with human language, though those more intelligent and educated than I might disagree. It is fun to try and wrap your mind around such ideas regardless. |
| on the runs |
| ||
this is not true. subatomic particles behave randomly and their position can only be predicted with some level of probability.[/quote] Fair enough. It is true that I simplified earlier. However, the fact that there is a probabilistic component to the future paths of particles does not seem to really impact the core issue raised. That is, the notion that anyone has any such thing as a free will, that there are free choices made, etc is all 100% illusory. All of it, everyone, and again every thought and action taken are determined by physical laws (including the random events at the subatomic level). In particular we (the posters here) each have no real choice in this discussion - every keystroke is determined by physical laws and randomness. Indeed "we" don't really exist in the commonly understood sense of beings possessing a free will. I would posit that no one ( not 'Noone' :D ) is truly capable of believing this about themselves.[/quote] So what if it is? If every thing you do, every decision you make is based upon everything else that preceded it, so what? Are you going to kill yourself or just enjoy the ride? |
| Billy the Kid |
| ||
The logical conclusion from this statement is that the firing of neurons in our brains is 100% determined by the position and velocity of each of the particles in our brains prior to that instant in time. Hence we are back to the same point that all of our thoughts and actions are 100% predetermined. Free will/choice is completely illusory. And if I am right that no one is capable of truly believing this about themselves then we are stuck with the awkward situation wherein none of us truly believes the consequences of the purely physical/materialist explanation of "everything" although most of the posters here would claim that in fact they do. |
| Billy the Kid |
| ||
|
I would posit that no one ( not 'Noone' :D ) is truly capable of believing this about themselves.[/quote] So what if it is? If every thing you do, every decision you make is based upon everything else that preceded it, so what? Are you going to kill yourself or just enjoy the ride?[/quote] Do I have a choice? Does anyone? |
| Anne Engineer |
| ||
No, that is not the logical conclusion. In fact, your error is called "The error of composition". In essence, you are stating that the universe is entirely deterministic while he is saying that at a quantum level it isn't. If you can't simultaneously know the precise position and velocity of every particle, then talking about absolute determinism is meaningless. A parallel example: You can determine the electrical current in a wire with great precision. Current is defined as the flow of electrical charge per unit time and a finite charge is associated with each electron. You can imagine counting electrons as they pass a point in the wire in order to determine the current. BUT, it is not true that they all line up and march down the wire in succession. In fact, if you could see them with your eye, you'd note that some of the electrons are actually moving against the flow at some times, but in general, they all tend to flow in that one direction. There is some randomness in their motion, but there is also an overall tendency. That randomness, though, throws a monkey wrench in the idea that you can determine the current with infinite precision. |
| Billy the Kid |
| ||
No, that is not the logical conclusion. In fact, your error is called "The error of composition". In essence, you are stating that the universe is entirely deterministic while he is saying that at a quantum level it isn't. If you can't simultaneously know the precise position and velocity of every particle, then talking about absolute determinism is meaningless. A parallel example: You can determine the electrical current in a wire with great precision. Current is defined as the flow of electrical charge per unit time and a finite charge is associated with each electron. You can imagine counting electrons as they pass a point in the wire in order to determine the current. BUT, it is not true that they all line up and march down the wire in succession. In fact, if you could see them with your eye, you'd note that some of the electrons are actually moving against the flow at some times, but in general, they all tend to flow in that one direction. There is some randomness in their motion, but there is also an overall tendency. That randomness, though, throws a monkey wrench in the idea that you can determine the current with infinite precision.[/quote] Actually no. Read his post again. He is very clearly stating that the quantum level uncertainties are irrelevant. If one is to take this as a given (note that in the post you cited I simply took his statement at face value for argument's sake) then indeed the conclusion that I draw is the logical one. If, on the other hand, there is fundamental uncertainty/randomness... then we are back to my previous post. In either case, the point that free will/free choice are 100 illusory given the assumption that there is nothing beyond the material/physical reality stands. As does the extension that this puts many of us in the awkward position of thinking that we believe/claiming that we believe something (nothing beyond physical randomness + physical laws) which implies something that we are incapable of believing (we do not have any choice in anything - including every keystroke that either you or I type here). |
| Anne Engineer |
| ||
|
Billy, Billy, Billy... Let's go back to the previous page where you said: The issue is really very simple. If there is nothing beyond physical laws (currently known to man or not) then the future position/motion of every particle in the universe (including every particle that makes up your physical presence) is completely determined. No. The current (let alone future) position and velocity of every particle is not determined (or able to be determined), thus your argument is moot. The end. And believe me, you're not the first person to come up with the deterministic argument. I suggest that you read mathematician Rudolf Rucker's Geometry, Relativity, and the Fourth Dimension for an interesting take on the subject (in the final chapter). |
| Billy the Kid |
| ||
Oh my dear, dear Anne, How quaint your expression. Let us make a few things clear. 1) I never claimed to be the first person to come up with any argument. For you to suggest this in your note is similar to me saying here and now that you, Anne are not the fastest runner who ever lived. And I would suggest that you look up the name Bolt. 2) Regarding your deceptively quoting from my earlier note you might want to follow the entire thread or perhaps study up on your logic. I simplified my original post to save time/space. When the randomness issue was legitimately raised by another I acknowledged this and simply extended the construct to include this matter. In doing so I pointed out that this does not in any substantive way impact the issue. It only makes it a bit longer to type up. 3. Thus the argument is not at all moot. It remains standing, awaiting an intelligent and substantive response. And no, citing some outside source (Rucker) is not an intelligent response. Perhaps we should spend time throwing (semi-random) philosopher/mathematician/logician/... names back and forth. For those who lack in intellectual capacity this often passes for intelligent discourse. Myself, I prefer directly addressing the issue. Open to your thoughts if you have any. |
| national public radio |
| ||
you assume that you understand much more about the universe than you or anyone else does. it's like assuming there is no possible way that particles behave randomly before it was proven. (which pretty much everyone did...and who knows...maybe they were correct) |
| Curious Person |
| ||
|
I like you. Life would be so much more enjoyable if everybody understood basic logic and didn't consider a reference to authority to be a valid argument. I can't tell you how many times that has driven me mad. |
| Trirunner |
| ||
I hope you are being sarcastic. Because if you are not you are saying that the individuals who spend their entire lives studying this material don't know more about this stuff than some internet hack who read a few web pages. |
| Wathcl |
| ||
|
Anne, do you admit defeat, or will you challenge Billy once again? |
| Curious Person |
| ||
|
Considering how scientists are held in such regard, I would think that the concept of repeatability (applicable to logic, who would have guessed!) would have seeped down the ladder a bit. Evidently some people have never had to publish a scientific paper. If part of a conclusion is challenged, the means by which it was arrived at must be repeatable for the conclusion to survive. By the way, generally the person who reads a few web pages on a technical material would be the one (falsely) referencing authority in an argument. I'm really, really sick of people choosing which conclusion they prefer, finding an "authority" who agrees with them, and arguing their case by citing said authority. |
| Guppy |
| ||
|
Since we're on this topic, and since I admittedly come off as a pompous ass sometimes, let me just say that I am NOT a scientist, academic, or expert on anything, nor do I claim to be on anything close to equal footing with any of the above. If I ever get to be in the same room as guys like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Noam Chomsky, etc, I will simply sit back and listen. I have spent a considerable amount of time learning about religion, and especially science (more than the average letsrunner at least), but I wouldn't want anyone to blindly accept what I say. I try to make my arguments in a way that doesn't require the citation of any authority. If the argument is valid it should be relatively easy to understand without slapping someone's name on it. However, I still encourage others to do some research themselves and make up their own minds. Most people don't seem to be capable of this though. The problem with appealing to false authority is that the authority is FALSE. People who've dedicated their lives to studying something and have years of experience are not false authorities on it. A biologist would be a false authority on economics, just like a priest is a false authority on science. A biologist is NOT a false authority on biology. It's so strange how Americans don't believe scientists know what they're talking about when it comes to evolution, Earth being 4.6 billion years old, etc, but believe in things like modern medicine, spaceflight, etc and enjoy such luxuries as HD tv, cell phones, and internet. It just amazes me how few people are able to think objectively.
No kidding. You can find an 'authority' to support whatever position you have, even when it's something as silly as geocentrism. |
| Anne Engineer |
| ||
|
Billy, as far as I can see, your original post concerned whether or not it made sense for someone to pray, and then there was a tangent regarding whether or not the universe is absolutely deterministic. Regarding the former, if we assume that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing being who created everything and has a plan for everything (an internal contradiction to begin with, but I digress), then praying would certainly seem to be a foolish act as you are essentially asking this being to change their plan for universe just for you in spite of the fact that they are clearly better informed than you and could see future consequences that you cannot. Regarding the latter, it is not true that the precise position and velocity of every particle can be known simultaneously, so any argument based on the idea that they can is moot. Finally, I never stated that you claimed to be the originator of the idea, nor did I make an appeal to authority. My intent was to show that this is an idea that had been hashed out long ago, and with several interested twists not covered here. |