Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The only problem with that is, it would have to only be non-logically 
> consistent on a very small scale, since, otherwise, there is no evidence 
> this would be the case. It also runs into the whole mess that *no* one, 
> neither scientists, nor the religious (who love this argument as an "in" 
> for their "faith"), would have any damn clue what is going on.

I'd love to address your points, if I could understand what you're saying.

-- 
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:
> It was an "alternate" design to existing ones, 
> which would allow more speed, but at less cost.

Errr, no, not really. The thing about reversible computing is that it takes 
just as much energy to run in the forward direction if you want to progress 
at the same speed. If you get half way through a calculation and stop 
applying a power gradient, you're equally likely to go either direction. You 
can use arbitrarily little energy, but you'll go arbitrarily slowly forward.

> What, if anything, it 
> had to do with quantum computing, from that article, would be rather 
> unclear, since it quite literally never mentioned it at all.

Quantum computing is the only *actual* reversible machines out there, afaik. 
  (Well, reversible in the sense of actually saving power to do 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

Warp wrote:
>   You are making many category mistakes here. The most prominent one is
> "either the story of genesis is literal and God created the universe and
> the principles we must obey, or the story is only an allegory and God did
> not create the universe nor the principles we must obey". It think this
> is called a false dichotomy.

No. I'm asking if God didn't create the universe and humans personally, why 
humans would have any moral obligation to God.  Why is it the case that we 
*should* obey God, rather than just God imposing his will on us like the 
ruler of an invading army would?

>   Just because the story might be told with allegories doesn't necessarily
> mean that the gist of the story is not true. 

I'm asking what parts you think is the essential "gist" that would lead to a 
real actual Son Of God being sacrificed being necessary for the eternal 
salvation of your soul.

You can't just say "it's not true, but you should believe the results of it 
as if it was true." If it's an allegory for something that *actually* 
happened and indeed *is* actually happening, you ought to be able to say 
what it is that is *actually* happening that leads to the same conclusions 
as the allegory. You can't say "it's just a metaphor for something else that 
I can't describe, but you should come to the same conclusions anyway."

> Just because something is
> expressed as a metaphor doesn't make what the metaphor is referring to
> false.

I'm just asking what could possibly be the actuality that would lead to the 
same conclusions.

>   Another mistake you are doing is straw man argumentation: You are taking
> the (well, *a*) literal interpretation of the scripture and then mocking it,
> arguing that since it makes no sense, nothing of it can be true (not even
> the idea that is being expressed in allegorical form).

I'm not mocking anything. I'm sincerely asking for an interpretation of the 
scripture that's consistent with the Big Bang and evolution wherein the 
execution of a Jewish rabbi 2000 years ago has an effect on my eternal soul.

>   Note that I'm not saying anything about the story is true. I'm just
> saying that your argumentation is fallacious.

It's not an argument. It's a question. You say "it's really an allegory, 
it's not true, but the conclusions are the same."  I'm asking what the truth 
is that would lead to that allegory and the same conclusions.

I.e., you say "just because it's allegorical doesn't mean it isn't 
describing a real event."  Fine. What's the "real event" that Genesis is 
describing? Then, given that real event, where does Jesus dying for your 
sins come into it?  I'm happy to listen to your description with an open 
mind. But it's a cop-out for you to follow "it's just allegorical but 
describing a real event" with "and by the way, you have to invent a 
satisfactory real event for yourself."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 9-1-2011 3:37, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> one time, with a distance between 2 points defined by x^2+Y^2+z^2-ct^2
>
>> OTOH if this is not observed in our universe, we either have more than
>> 4 space/time dimensions or laws are not invariant, both do not seem
>> compatible with reality.
>
> Except you just included "c" as a constant in that formula, which was
> the point. If "c" varies depending on how fast you're going, that whole
> formula falls apart.

?? I defined a metric on my space, that is all. OK, I added a 'c' to 
keep consistent with ordinary people*. No self respecting theoretical 
physicist would do that. (But then they sometimes don't know what their 
formulas mean in real life as they lost track what the power of 'c' is 
in their formulas; 'c' is in their system a constant of 1). That the c 
turns out to have a meaning in real life is a surprise.
In fact it doesn't, remember we were just doing maths. All we know is 
that there are coupled vector and scalar fields, with solutions that 
propagate out with a speed 'c'. If we identify those with the E and B 
field what propagates out is light, but then we are in the physical world.

A more consistent implementation of your proposal would be to define a 
distance as (px)^2+(qy)^2+(rz)^2-(ct)^2 where p,q,r, and c depend on 
position in space and/or velocity (and/or on higher orders derivatives). 
I am sure there are some mathematicians studying those too. Perhaps some 
of those can even be forced to be Galileo or Lorentz invariant too.

*) Note that I forgot to square it, the dimensions don't add up. 
Probably my teacher first did it without this constant or with another 
constant to remind us later that it had a dimension of (m/s)^2

Post a reply to this message

On 1/8/2011 7:38 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> The only problem with that is, it would have to only be non-logically
>> consistent on a very small scale, since, otherwise, there is no
>> evidence this would be the case. It also runs into the whole mess that
>> *no* one, neither scientists, nor the religious (who love this
>> argument as an "in" for their "faith"), would have any damn clue what
>> is going on.
>
> I'd love to address your points, if I could understand what you're saying.
>
?? I am saying, if the universe isn't logically consistent than science 
would have to be wrong on a huge scale, but the morons that use that as 
an excuse to claim anything else is better wouldn't have a leg to stand 
on either. You would need to.. have an inconsistent universe, which 
never the less, managed to be consistent on the large scale only. Like.. 
statistically stable, but completely unstable on the basic level.

Mind, this wouldn't preclude it being consistent, it would only mean 
that events where not predictable on the smallest scale, but that the 
law of averages/big numbers both made it consistent once you had enough 
events to look at.

-- 
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 1/8/2011 7:44 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> It was an "alternate" design to existing ones, which would allow more
>> speed, but at less cost.
>
> Errr, no, not really. The thing about reversible computing is that it
> takes just as much energy to run in the forward direction if you want to
> progress at the same speed. If you get half way through a calculation
> and stop applying a power gradient, you're equally likely to go either
> direction. You can use arbitrarily little energy, but you'll go
> arbitrarily slowly forward.
>
>> What, if anything, it had to do with quantum computing, from that
>> article, would be rather unclear, since it quite literally never
>> mentioned it at all.
>
> Quantum computing is the only *actual* reversible machines out there,
> afaik. (Well, reversible in the sense of actually saving power to do so.)
>
Think we may be talking about different things here... The idea I am 
talking about is that you programmaticaly do the equivalent of:

1 + 2 + 4 * 5 = result
roll back to 1 + 2
3 * 10 + 5 = result

The point of the idea being that if you do not have to "turn on" a 
switch, only shut some off, the cost is lower. The trick being how to 
know if the previous state *is* going to do that. Its an insanely mind 
boggling idea, but some limited experiments have been done with it, and 
it didn't require a quantum computer to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing

-- 
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 1/8/2011 2:12 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote:
>> This isn't the real problem. The real problem is that those who support
>> it **do not want a result that contradicts the idea that the first part
>> of the Bible is literally true**. The Vatican recently mumbled something
>> about how they believe, "god created the big bang." The answer of one of
>> the *major* proponents of the, "youngish earth, AiG, ID is real", dear
>> old Ken Ham, had to this was, roughly, "If the big bang happened, then
>> genesis would need to be wrong, or allegory, but if it was wrong, then
>> the first 'marriage' would be false, sin wouldn't be real, etc., and it
>> would fundamentally destroy everything from Christianity itself, to the
>> sanctity of heterosexual marriage. Therefor, the Pope is wrong!"
>
>> Its the first case of actual logic I have seen from the man. Yes Ken, if
>> Genesis, which is the basis of virtually every bit of bullshit
>> moralizing, persecution, and evil your religion has, or continues, to
>> institute, was wrong, so would your entire religion. Congratulations on
>> proving you can follow logic, even if you completely fail at accepting
>> its conclusions. lol
>
>    I think your view is biased. I don't see how "the story of Genesis is
> only an allegory, it did not happen literally" would discredit the entirety
> of christianity. For example the "sanctity of marriage" (assuming there is
> such a thing) doesn't become any less so if the story of creation is
> allegorical.
>
It would discredit ***his***, and pretty much the view of all of the 
people like him, on the subject. In any case, they are the ones claiming 
that proving that there where not X number of imaginary "kinds" on a 
non-existent Ark, and all the other gibberish in there, would rob their 
pathetic little lives of all hope and purpose.

Kind of like to know though.. If, as he claims, the whole Adam and Eve 
thing was the first "marriage", by which all others are based, where did 
I miss the ceremony and exchange of vows in there, and what where they 
exactly? lol

-- 
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

On 1/8/2011 12:25 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>    I think your view is biased. I don't see how "the story of Genesis is
>>> only an allegory, it did not happen literally" would discredit the entirety
>>> of christianity.
>
>> What did Jesus die for, if there is no original sin? Indeed, why should
>> anyone worship YHVH if he *isn't* the creator?
>
>    The question is literal interpretation vs. allegorical interpretation.
> Just because something is written figuratively doesn't mean that it's not
> describing a real event. The details may be fictitious, but it may still
> be describing what happened.
>
Except, where the "event" is only described in one book of fiction, and 
no where else at all, and the only references to the event all seem to 
show up *after* it was written. You know, kind of like 100% of 
everything on the whole Jesus part of it...

-- 
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

On 1/8/2011 1:53 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>>>> Warp wrote:
>>>>>    I think your view is biased. I don't see how "the story of Genesis is
>>>>> only an allegory, it did not happen literally" would discredit the entirety
>>>>> of christianity.
>>>
>>>> What did Jesus die for, if there is no original sin? Indeed, why should
>>>> anyone worship YHVH if he *isn't* the creator?
>>>
>>>    The question is literal interpretation vs. allegorical interpretation.
>
>> But we're not talking about the allegorical "sun rising" kind of thing (vs
>> Earth orbiting the Sun). We're talking about whether some supernatural being
>> intentionally created humans as they are, told them lies, then punished them
>> and all their descendants for believing some other third party that pointed
>> out the lies were lies. Then killed all but a handful because they disobeyed
>> him some more.
>
>> I don't see how you can turn that into an allegory that makes "sin" still be
>> a reasonable concept. What might have *really* happened that would make it
>> possible for the death of a rabbi a couple thousand years ago capable of
>> affecting what happens to you after you're dead? I just can't imagine what
>> would give YHVH any moral authority to dictate what humans do and to punish
>> them for failing to do so, if YHVH didn't actually create humans.
>
>    You are making many category mistakes here. The most prominent one is
> "either the story of genesis is literal and God created the universe and
> the principles we must obey, or the story is only an allegory and God did
> not create the universe nor the principles we must obey". It think this
> is called a false dichotomy.
>
It should be noted that if this *is* a false dichotomy, it is precisely 
the one that people like Ken Ham are scared to death of. They literally 
say that *everyone* has to be true, except if they so otherwise, or its 
all a lie. Examined purely from that stance, they are 100% correct. The 
problem, of course, is that, instead of reexamining their initial 
premise, they circle the wagons, and insist its all true anyway, and 
everyone else is wrong for pointing out to them that it can't be, or 
worse, that its not *necessary* for them to accept parts of it.

>    Just because the story might be told with allegories doesn't necessarily
> mean that the gist of the story is not true. Just because something is
> expressed as a metaphor doesn't make what the metaphor is referring to
> false.
>
We are not the ones making that argument. They are. So, by their 
standards, it can't be true *at all*, if the core part of it is 
allegory. I won't even bother with how many things are just plain stupid 
about it, or contradictory to physics, geology, biology, and human 
psychology, even if it is accepted as allegory.

-- 
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

On 9-1-2011 20:26, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> On 1/8/2011 2:12 AM, Warp wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>>> This isn't the real problem. The real problem is that those who support
>>> it **do not want a result that contradicts the idea that the first part
>>> of the Bible is literally true**. The Vatican recently mumbled something
>>> about how they believe, "god created the big bang." The answer of one of
>>> the *major* proponents of the, "youngish earth, AiG, ID is real", dear
>>> old Ken Ham, had to this was, roughly, "If the big bang happened, then
>>> genesis would need to be wrong, or allegory, but if it was wrong, then
>>> the first 'marriage' would be false, sin wouldn't be real, etc., and it
>>> would fundamentally destroy everything from Christianity itself, to the
>>> sanctity of heterosexual marriage. Therefor, the Pope is wrong!"
>>
>>> Its the first case of actual logic I have seen from the man. Yes Ken, if
>>> Genesis, which is the basis of virtually every bit of bullshit
>>> moralizing, persecution, and evil your religion has, or continues, to
>>> institute, was wrong, so would your entire religion. Congratulations on
>>> proving you can follow logic, even if you completely fail at accepting
>>> its conclusions. lol
>>
>> I think your view is biased. I don't see how "the story of Genesis is
>> only an allegory, it did not happen literally" would discredit the
>> entirety
>> of christianity. For example the "sanctity of marriage" (assuming
>> there is
>> such a thing) doesn't become any less so if the story of creation is
>> allegorical.
>>
> It would discredit ***his***, and pretty much the view of all of the
> people like him, on the subject. In any case, they are the ones claiming
> that proving that there where not X number of imaginary "kinds" on a
> non-existent Ark, and all the other gibberish in there, would rob their
> pathetic little lives of all hope and purpose.
>
> Kind of like to know though.. If, as he claims, the whole Adam and Eve
> thing was the first "marriage", by which all others are based, where did
> I miss the ceremony and exchange of vows in there, and what where they
> exactly? lol

You forget to mention that he first had to divorce from the unnamed 
woman in gen 1:27
But let's get back to molecular biology, much more interesting than a 
repeat of the bible discussions.

Post a reply to this message