![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 10/20/2010 7:37 AM, Warp wrote:
> 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.
>
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 10/20/2010 10:12 AM, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
>
Course, another question is, "Is it truly possible to create such a
construct, in which the actors in the construct can *never* be aware of
the nature of the construct?" I.e., no flaws can be detected, things
that happen in ways they shouldn't, or which otherwise implies that the
system was "designed". This is a perfectly valid question, for which the
answer seems to be, "Nothing obvious, so far, would imply this, as far
as we can tell." Doesn't prove that the "design" isn't bullet proof, in
the sense of use not being *able* to see the flaws, but, again, if that
is the reality of the situation, then all we can do is work with what we
*can* see, since, by definition, the superuniverse is irrelevant to
anything we can detect/test/analyze anyway, and therefor does not, for
practical purposes, exist anyway.
--
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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.
You know, I don't know where you grew up or anything, but I have the hardest
time in the world understanding WTF you're going on about. That entire
sentence makes no sense. It's like a written version of the G-Man speaking.
You said "you can't have such a drastic error in thinking" (i.e., being
religious) "and not have it spill over into your own discipline."
I give examples of where you can.
I don't understand what you're trying to say in response, but it doesn't
sound like anything addressing what I said.
>>> 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."
And I'm saying you have confirmation bias. Just like the people who say
"thinks just don't *work* that way" are basing it on their experience.
> Because, you know.. Having nearly every moron I have ever seen
> show up on a science blog denying evolution
Now you're going on about something else.
Please explain how the lack of belief in evolution affects ones ability to
program computers. You simply assert this, yet none of your examples
actually show it affects that. You simply point out that computer
scientists do indeed sometimes assert this. So? Does it "spill over into
your own discipline"?
You say you've argued this. What's your argument?
Now, if you said "You can't believe in creationism and not have it affect
your discipline if your discipline is biology or medicine", then sure, I'd
believe that.
> It does effect things.
Sheesh. I've seen about thirty people today attempting proof by vigorous
assertion.
> 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
... then you'd no longer be a car mechanic, now would you? You'd be a geologist.
> Same for someone that thinks genetics is a lie, and programs
> computers. If they never deal with the obscurity of genetic algorithms,
I think it's entirely possible for someone to believe Jesus is their savior
and still understand how genetic algorithms work. I think it's entirely
possible for someone to believe in creationism and understand how genetic
algorithms work. Why wouldn't they?
> and they don't need to build their own chips,
I've been a professional computer programmer for 30+ years. I have a PhD in
it. I've never needed to use a genetic algorithm or build my own chips, in
spite of actually knowing the physics behind how semiconductors work, which
is more than I can say about 99% of anyone else I know who programs
computers, most of whom don't even know how many connectors a transistor has.
> Same with every other field.
Oh, I'm pretty sure you can be a carpenter without knowing how evolution
works. I'm almost certain you can lay cement and build roads and still
believe the Mohamed spoke directly to angels.
Indeed, not only can you be a carpenter and religious, I'd go so far as to
say you can even be a carpenter and be GOD HIMSELF. ;-)
> 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.
I don't follow. How does believing that Jesus is the son of God and died for
our sins on the cross prevent me from understanding how an electrical
circuit works? Above, you say "you argue that" but you haven't actually
given me an explanation except in cases where it's actually relevant to the
work you do.
How does believing in Jesus' resurrection prevent me from understanding how
computers work?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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.
Well, I know a bunch of people like that. Sorry you find it implausible
without any reason to back you up other than your general disdain for
irrational beliefs.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> 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).
I'm not disagreeing.
> 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.
That's what the paragraph you quoted was trying to express. That's why I
said "it's a semantic argument." It becomes a question of whether we say
"natural is how the simulation runs" or whether we say "natural is the laws
of that guy's super-universe, and our simulation obeys those laws just like
the Sims obeys the laws of physics running your PC."
> (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.)
Agreed. That's also possible, but much less interesting to speculate about. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Course, another question is, "Is it truly possible to create such a
> construct, in which the actors in the construct can *never* be aware of
> the nature of the construct?" I.e., no flaws can be detected, things
> that happen in ways they shouldn't, or which otherwise implies that the
> system was "designed".
Yes, it's trivial. If the system is deterministic, you run it until one of
the simulees notices something wrong. Then you back it up, fix it, and let
it go on again.
I'd say nowadays we're finding all kinds of things that may very well be
flaws we're detecting: Bell's inequality, Plank length, dark energy,
incompatibility of GR with QM, inability to separate out an individual
quark, etc etc etc.
I thought one of the more interesting ideas was in one of Wolfram's books.
If we're simulated, there's no reason to believe the universe updates all at
once. There's no reason why each atom can't be moving one step of simulation
(one plank length?) at a time, once for each particle in the universe, one
at a time. You wouldn't notice, because your brain isn't getting updated
while every other atom is getting moved into position.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |