 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
XKCD is oddly relevant today: http://www.xkcd.com/808/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
> 1) Once you provide a definition that could be, it becomes testable, and
> if it actually applied to the real world, would pretty much eliminate it
> as "supernatural".
There's a complication with the definition of the concept "natural".
"Natural" would be something bound to the laws of the Universe. *This*
Universe where we are in.
Now, it may be possible that this Universe is all that there is. There's
nothing outside this Universe (and it's not only that "there's nothing
outside this Universe", but moreover, there is no outside, the "outside"
doesn't exist; this Universe is all that there is).
If there is somehing outside of this Universe, it could not be bound to
the laws of this Universe because eg. time and space, iow. the geometry
of this Univserse, is bound by definition to this Universe, and this
geometry does not extend outside. This Universe is a closed system in
geometry and content (nothing inside can leave it by our current
understanding of the laws of this Universe. because there is no way
out, due to the Universe's geometry).
Hence if there is something outside of this Universe (ie. the "outside"
*exists* in some way), it has to exist in some kind of "superior" form
of existence which is not bound by the geometry and laws of our Universe.
Maybe the geometry of the "outside" (if we can define it as such, with
our limited view of the Universe) is more complicated than ours, and our
Universe's geometry is only a subset of this "supergeometry".
Likewise the physical laws of our Universe would probably be a subset
of the physical laws of this "superuniverse".
Thus if we define "natural" as anything inside our Universe and bound
to its physical laws, anything *outside* our Universe (if it exists) would,
by definition, be "supernatural" (in the sense that it would be bound to
a *superset* of our own physical laws).
Of course even if there is a "superuniverse" (within which our Universe
is only a small subset), that doesn't automatically imply that there
exists any intelligent "life" (by whatever definition) there, or any
"life" at all. Maybe our Universe simply popped into existence inside
this "superuniverse" by some ("supernatural") physical phenomenon there
(something popping out of nothing is actually not a completely alien
concept even inside our own Universe, with quantum mechanics having
defined such concepts already, eg. in the form of virtual particles).
Maybe there are countless universes popping into existence in this
"superuniverse", each one with differing energy and internal physical
laws (and our Universe just happened by chance to be perfect to form
life as we know it).
A "superuniverse" hypothesis is most probably not testable for the
very reason that we are completely bound to the laws and geometry of
our own Universe. We have no way to reach the "outside" (because there
is no "outside" as far as this Universe is concerned, because we are
bound to its internal geometry, which knows no "outside").
However, if there is a "superuniverse", and our "sub-universe" (if we
can call it like that) popped into existence inside it, that
"superuniverse" would be, by definition, supernatural.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 10/18/2010 8:41 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> there is a marked difference between "still accepted" beliefs, and
>>> those rejected as mythology.
>>
>> Which one of those examples do you think is not still accepted beliefs?
>>
> As far as I know, flying horses and golden plates are *not* in that
> category, which is what the later part of my posting relates to.
You are uneducated.
> theist invariably lumps such things into,
That hasn't been my experience.
> Sadly, this is not uncommon. However, many, including myself, have
> argued that you cannot have such a drastic error in thinking, and not
> have it spill over into your own discipline,
Huh. Odd. Some of the smartest people I know doing computers are devoutly
religious. I can't imagine why you'd think that belief that Jesus sacrificed
himself to save you would interfere with your ability to design computer
software, for example.
> I flat out do not believe
So, in other words, "seems reasonable, so I have faith that it is so"?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren's assertion is one I find implausible,
You find it implausible that someone could believe in Jesus without
believing in CIA mind-control beams, moon trip hoaxes, and space aliens
making crop circles?
You find it implausible that someone could believe in God, but not believe
Jesus is his son, or that Mohamed or John Smith spoke to him directly?
You find it implausible that someone could believe Mohamed is the one true
prophet, but there aren't any Thetans living inside people?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> A "superuniverse" hypothesis is most probably not testable for the
> very reason that we are completely bound to the laws and geometry of
> our own Universe. We have no way to reach the "outside" (because there
> is no "outside" as far as this Universe is concerned, because we are
> bound to its internal geometry, which knows no "outside").
I'm not sure this follows, given that it's possible for the superuniverse to
affect this universe. We don't have to reach out to run experiments, if we
can observe what's happening. And I can demonstrate this with an example:
Let's say the superuniverse exists, and not only that, our universe was
specifically created and controlled by a being there whom we will call God
for want of a better name. Think of our universe as a giant (deterministic)
game of The Sims for God.
Interestingly, this give all kinds of attributes to "God" that are usually
discussed in earth religions nowadays: Created the universe. Omnipotent, by
the simple expedient that he can modify any bit of the code to make it do
what he wants, or change data structures with a debugger, etc. Omniscient,
by the simple expedient of checkpointing the simulation, letting it run, and
seeing what happens, then winding it back again. Capricious, possibly.
Interested in humans, likely, unless God is only interested in some other
bunch of aliens. Desiring of worship, perhaps, if that's how he gets his
rocks off. Probably still not infinitely loving and caring, but I'm pretty
sure last I looked that only Christians think of God that way.
Certainly if such a supernatural being exists, it might be easy for him to
simply reveal such a fact to everyone in unarguable ways, definitively
answering whether there is such a thing as "supernatural", even beyond the
ability of alien technology, such as altering fundamental physical
constants, predicting the results of quantum events, moving things around
faster than light, etc.
Of course, then, the next question becomes whether, if so revealed, the
supernatural becomes part of our universe and hence natural. At that point,
it's a semantic argument.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Of course, then, the next question becomes whether, if so revealed, the
> supernatural becomes part of our universe and hence natural. At that point,
> it's a semantic argument.
As I said, if this hypothetical being is bound to the physical laws of
the hypothesized superuniverse rather than the ones of our universe, this
being would be, by definition, "supernatural" (because "natural" would be
anything bound to the laws of *this* universe).
Of course one could argue that if the existence and nature of the
superuniverse becomes well-known, the definition of "natural" would then
be expanded to cover that as well.
(It's also possible that if such a superuniverse exists, it's so different
from our "sub-universe" that humans have no way of comprehending it nor
expressing the laws that govern it. Maybe by its nature its very existence
is completely equivalent to a paradox or impossibility to us. Maybe the
laws of our universe are not a "subset" at all, but a set of completely
different and random physical laws which formed inside this "bubble" that
is our universe, and which are completely separate and independent from
the superuniverse where this "bubble" appeared.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2010 8:58 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> Sadly, this is not uncommon. However, many, including myself, have
>> argued that you cannot have such a drastic error in thinking, and not
>> have it spill over into your own discipline,
>
> Huh. Odd. Some of the smartest people I know doing computers are
> devoutly religious. I can't imagine why you'd think that belief that
> Jesus sacrificed himself to save you would interfere with your ability
> to design computer software, for example.
>
Right.. Because there isn't, for example, a very weird association
between either engineers *or* computer science, and the tendency of both
to think ID makes more sense than Evolution. Its invariably one or the
other, which ends up being the discipline someone belongs to, when they
claim to advocate ID. By the same token, there is at least one computer
scientist, who worked for the military, who in fact "claims" that
genetic algorithms don't work. He knows this because he worked with
them, supposedly, yet, nearly every modern weapons tracking system uses
them, because its easier to "evolve" a system that tracks 250
simultaneous targets, than it is to engineer one.
>> I flat out do not believe
>
> So, in other words, "seems reasonable, so I have faith that it is so"?
>
Sorry, did I make the mistake of failing to denote "believe" in this
context as, "based on my experience, not just because I want it to be
true." Because, you know.. Having nearly every moron I have ever seen
show up on a science blog denying evolution either say, "I reject it for
religion", or, "Religion is part of it, but I am also a computer
scientist, or engineer, and things just don't *work* that way, or happen
without a creator!"
It does effect things. But, as I said, it may not be in a way that is
obvious to an outside observer. You don't need to believe in the earth
being billions of years old to be a car mechanic either, but if you
found yourself having to find your own oil... all of the sudden your
"expertise" in internal combustion engines has just been rendered
worthless, by having no fracking clue where, or why, to look for fuel
for the damn thing. If you have no need **at all** to find it, its never
a problem. Same for someone that thinks genetics is a lie, and programs
computers. If they never deal with the obscurity of genetic algorithms,
and they don't need to build their own chips, they can go around
blissfully ignorant of everything they program, or use to program, that
may have, at some point, used them to make the product. Same with every
other field. If you never deal with the stuff "under the table", which
is just the wiring/parts/mechanics of the system you use to do your job,
you may be completely unaffected by the fact that you also believe
something contradicted by the existence of the gadget you are using in
the first place. So, in a bloody trivial sense, you are quite correct.
It is possible for someone to even be a neurosurgeon, and deny the brain
as anything but and "interface" to souls, but I for one want to frakking
know my doctor doesn't hold this view, if he is going to be working in
my head. Same with the guy building my car, or my TV, or coding my
software. I want to know that they not only are using the best ideas,
but that if they *need* to reinvent the wheel, for some reason, they are
not trying to do so by referencing passages in the Bible that suggest
that "round" objects can be made using 3 for the value of PI.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2010 8:58 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 10/18/2010 8:41 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> there is a marked difference between "still accepted" beliefs, and
>>>> those rejected as mythology.
>>>
>>> Which one of those examples do you think is not still accepted beliefs?
>>>
>> As far as I know, flying horses and golden plates are *not* in that
>> category, which is what the later part of my posting relates to.
>
> You are uneducated.
>
Sorry, was thinking "plates", as "eat off of", not the magic hat
variety. I do admit ignorance of the flying horse one though...
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2010 9:01 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Darren's assertion is one I find implausible,
>
> You find it implausible that someone could believe in Jesus without
> believing in CIA mind-control beams, moon trip hoaxes, and space aliens
> making crop circles?
>
> You find it implausible that someone could believe in God, but not
> believe Jesus is his son, or that Mohamed or John Smith spoke to him
> directly?
>
> You find it implausible that someone could believe Mohamed is the one
> true prophet, but there aren't any Thetans living inside people?
>
No, I find it implausible that someone can **only** believe in the
specific mythology of their religion, without taking on, at bare
minimum, Altie medicine, *or*, therapeutic touch, *or* astrology, *or*
at least **one**, of not far more, other goofy ideas. I am not
advocating that they will automatically believe in any *specific* random
idea you might name, just at least one or more of the myriad absurdities
people also believe in. Want to bet how many Jesus nuts fell for "The
Secret!", for example?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2010 7:37 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> 1) Once you provide a definition that could be, it becomes testable, and
>> if it actually applied to the real world, would pretty much eliminate it
>> as "supernatural".
>
> There's a complication with the definition of the concept "natural".
> "Natural" would be something bound to the laws of the Universe. *This*
> Universe where we are in.
>
> Now, it may be possible that this Universe is all that there is. There's
> nothing outside this Universe (and it's not only that "there's nothing
> outside this Universe", but moreover, there is no outside, the "outside"
> doesn't exist; this Universe is all that there is).
>
> If there is somehing outside of this Universe, it could not be bound to
> the laws of this Universe because eg. time and space, iow. the geometry
> of this Univserse, is bound by definition to this Universe, and this
> geometry does not extend outside. This Universe is a closed system in
> geometry and content (nothing inside can leave it by our current
> understanding of the laws of this Universe. because there is no way
> out, due to the Universe's geometry).
>
> Hence if there is something outside of this Universe (ie. the "outside"
> *exists* in some way), it has to exist in some kind of "superior" form
> of existence which is not bound by the geometry and laws of our Universe.
> Maybe the geometry of the "outside" (if we can define it as such, with
> our limited view of the Universe) is more complicated than ours, and our
> Universe's geometry is only a subset of this "supergeometry".
>
> Likewise the physical laws of our Universe would probably be a subset
> of the physical laws of this "superuniverse".
>
> Thus if we define "natural" as anything inside our Universe and bound
> to its physical laws, anything *outside* our Universe (if it exists) would,
> by definition, be "supernatural" (in the sense that it would be bound to
> a *superset* of our own physical laws).
>
> Of course even if there is a "superuniverse" (within which our Universe
> is only a small subset), that doesn't automatically imply that there
> exists any intelligent "life" (by whatever definition) there, or any
> "life" at all. Maybe our Universe simply popped into existence inside
> this "superuniverse" by some ("supernatural") physical phenomenon there
> (something popping out of nothing is actually not a completely alien
> concept even inside our own Universe, with quantum mechanics having
> defined such concepts already, eg. in the form of virtual particles).
> Maybe there are countless universes popping into existence in this
> "superuniverse", each one with differing energy and internal physical
> laws (and our Universe just happened by chance to be perfect to form
> life as we know it).
>
> A "superuniverse" hypothesis is most probably not testable for the
> very reason that we are completely bound to the laws and geometry of
> our own Universe. We have no way to reach the "outside" (because there
> is no "outside" as far as this Universe is concerned, because we are
> bound to its internal geometry, which knows no "outside").
>
> However, if there is a "superuniverse", and our "sub-universe" (if we
> can call it like that) popped into existence inside it, that
> "superuniverse" would be, by definition, supernatural.
>
So.. In other words, it doesn't matter if you name it supernatural, or
superuniverse, its still not "testable" from inside ours, and therefor
represents neither a useful question (since it can't apply, unless you
can make **some sort** of testable predictions about it), nor something
necessary for understanding the one we *can* test things about?
This is just a naturalist version of the supernatural. Its no more
useful, profound, or meaningful than the theist version, and makes just
as much sense to propose, which is "none". Why not the "Matrix", or
"everyone is just the one and only real person's dream", etc.? Unless
you can present something you can test, they are all equally valid,
which is to say, not useful at all.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
