Discussion:
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
(too old to reply)
Peter Watson
2005-08-12 23:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Why the Missing Link Is Still Missing
Peter, read my lips, there is NO missing *link* humans ARE a species of
ape, in laymans terms, a member of the ape family. Peter you are an
ape, yeah I know that probaby hurt Peter, but its true.
Speak for yourself

That which distinguishes us from apes is the ability to reflect.
You appear to think I am consumed with fear with your terribly clever
answers. I am not.

And apes generally don't know how to prepare cooked food.
There is no *missing link* between fish, a snapper and a gold fish have
no missing link, a buffalo and a domestic cow have no *missing link*.
Uh huh
Evolution means ongoing, eg it is a fact that since the west have had
an influence in Asia, especially Japan, it is a fact that the average
Japanese face is now longer than it was 100 years (only four or five
generations) due to the development of stronger jaw muscles to eat red
meat.
Right.////////////////
and..................................................
My personal belief is that God was created by evolution.
The mystic's (Peter's) god is no more than a creation of the mystic's
mind.
Yep. You sure are right then. So you must be ok. Huh?
Who made you then?
--
Peter Watson
Peter are you now saying everything needs a maker, what made your god?
Nothing. He always was.
What made the matter that your god made the universe with?
He did.
What does it matter anyway Peter?
I could ask you the same thing/.
Why do YOU *need* a god (your crutch) for Peter?
Because i am unable to see any purpose otherwise/

It is a choice between nihilism or hedonism./
Michael Gordge
bye
--
Peter Watson
Ford Prefect
2005-08-12 23:17:46 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:06:15 +0100, Peter Watson
"Darwin on Trial is unquestionably the best critique of Darwinism I have
ever read. Professor Johnson combines a broad knowledge of biology with
the incisive logic of a leading legal scholar to deliver a brilliant and
devastating attack on the whole edifice of Darwinian belief. There is no
doubt that this book will prove a severe embarrassment to the Darwinian
establishment."
Dr. Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist
and author of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
"Darwin on Trial shows just how Darwinian evolution has become an idol
of the contemporary tribe, and how deeply philosophical and religious
ideas enter into its status as part of the intellectual orthodoxy of our
day."
Alvin Plantinga, Professor of Philosophy
Notre Dame University
"Darwin on Trial is both an excellent and highly readable presentation
of the difficulties that Darwinians have yet to provide a convincing
answer to, and an eye-opening history of some of the recent attempts by
Darwinians to control the terms of the debate. I recommend it very
highly."
Peter van Inwagen, Professor of Philosophy
Syracuse University
"Phillip Johnson has done extremely well in making himself familiar with
evolutionary theory and biological ways of reasoning .... This book is
highly recommended as an introduction to the current controversy on
evolution."
Dr. Siegfried Scherer, Faculty of Biology
University of Konstanz, Germany
"Darwin on Trial is more than just a brilliant critique of the
neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. It is also an insightful analysis of
the strong philosophical bias for faith in evolution held by many of the
theory's leading advocates."
Dr. Walter Bradley, Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Texas A & M University
"In all the vast literature on Darwinism, evolution, creation, and
theism, one will likely not find a treatment so calm, comprehensive, and
compellingly persuasive as Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial. I
recommend it with enthusiasm."
Richard John Neuhaus, Editor, First Things
"Darwin's theory of evolution is one of the great intellectual
superstition of modern times. It does the soul good to see a Berkeley
professor attack it."
Tom Bethell, The Hoover Institution
Behe was enough to convince me that Darwinism is valuable but
inadequate to explain the origin and development of the species.
Nobel Laureate Sir James Crick believes the species were seeded by
extraterrestrials. I agree with him since it is the simplest
explanation of how intelligent design could come about.
Let's just hope that we aren't food for them.
Or as I have maintained we are the result of alien left overs from a
extra terrestrial picnic ;~) It's quite possible we evolved from garbage.
mimus
2005-08-13 00:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Or as I have maintained we are the result of alien left overs from a
extra terrestrial picnic ;~) It's quite possible we evolved from garbage.
Pratchett and Adams both?
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
Anubis
2005-08-13 01:40:25 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:17:46 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
It's quite possible we evolved from garbage.
That would explain why there are so many leftist queers in Britain.
Paul Hyett
2005-08-13 08:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:17:46 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
It's quite possible we evolved from garbage.
That would explain why there are so many leftist queers in Britain.
So - what stock have most white Texans come from...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
AlanG
2005-08-13 11:50:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:20:35 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 19:17:46 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
It's quite possible we evolved from garbage.
That would explain why there are so many leftist queers in Britain.
So - what stock have most white Texans come from...
Loading Image...
e***@gmail.com
2005-08-13 11:54:41 UTC
Permalink
It's a THEORY. Everything in science (even the poorly-named Gravity
Law) is only a theory..... to be expounded upon & enhanced as we
experiment & gain more knowledge.



The real question should be - Is there a better explanation for our
existence on earth? The answer presently is no.

troy
Gregory Shearman
2005-08-14 07:04:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@gmail.com
It's a THEORY. Everything in science (even the poorly-named Gravity
Law) is only a theory..... to be expounded upon & enhanced as we
experiment & gain more knowledge.
The real question should be - Is there a better explanation for our
existence on earth? The answer presently is no.
Sing along with me (To the tune of Auld Lang Syne):

"We're here because We're here, because We're here,

Because We're here;

We're here because We're here, because We're here,

Because We're here."
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
Anubis
2005-08-14 11:48:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:04:57 +1000, Gregory Shearman
Post by Gregory Shearman
We're here because We're here
If that were true then you would never cease to exist.

Accordint to what you said, the essence of such a being who is here
because he is here is to be here. That's his essence - to be here.
Therefore he cannot be anything other than to be here.

That means he could never be anything other than to be here. He could
not die, for example. I suppose now you will claim that you are
immortal.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-14 14:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:04:57 +1000, Gregory Shearman
Post by Gregory Shearman
We're here because We're here
If that were true then you would never cease to exist.
Accordint to what you said, the essence of such a being who is here
because he is here is to be here. That's his essence - to be here.
Therefore he cannot be anything other than to be here.
That means he could never be anything other than to be here. He could
not die, for example. I suppose now you will claim that you are
immortal.
Technically we don't cease to exist, we simply become compost which is
recycled.
Anubis
2005-08-14 15:28:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:54:45 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Technically we don't cease to exist, we simply become compost which is
recycled.
I was talking about our conscious awareness of reality.

Of course our bodies are recycled. But our conscious awareness ends at
death.

Just as every snowflake is unique, so is every instance of
consciousness awareness in each human being. And when we die, it's
like a snowflake melting - the water continues on as compost, but the
unique pattern that characterized that particular snowflake is gone
forever.

When you come to an understanding of that, you will treat your
xistence with the profound respect it deserves, because you will never
experience it again once you die.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-14 16:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:54:45 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Technically we don't cease to exist, we simply become compost which is
recycled.
I was talking about our conscious awareness of reality.
Of course our bodies are recycled. But our conscious awareness ends at
death.
Just as every snowflake is unique, so is every instance of
consciousness awareness in each human being. And when we die, it's
like a snowflake melting - the water continues on as compost, but the
unique pattern that characterized that particular snowflake is gone
forever.
When you come to an understanding of that, you will treat your
xistence with the profound respect it deserves, because you will never
experience it again once you die.
That's why I don't waste any of my life contemplating the imaginary or
objects of wistful thinking.
Paul Hyett
2005-08-15 06:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:54:45 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Technically we don't cease to exist, we simply become compost which is
recycled.
I was talking about our conscious awareness of reality.
Of course our bodies are recycled. But our conscious awareness ends at
death.
You have proof of that?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Anubis
2005-08-15 10:13:13 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:27:35 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
Of course our bodies are recycled. But our conscious awareness ends at
death.
You have proof of that?
What kind of proof are you expecting?

No, I do not have empirical proof. But I do know that conscious
awareness is the result of brain activity, and when we die our brains
no longer produce conscious awareness, so it would appear correct to
state that when we die, we are no longer consciously aware on a
permanent basis.

I suppose you could claim that our conscious awareness lives on past
our death, but that would imply that our conscious awareness is
separate from brain activity, which defies what we know about the
brain and requires postulating the existence of a soul. That
needlessly increases being, so it violates Occam's Razor.
Peter Watson
2005-08-15 13:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:27:35 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
Of course our bodies are recycled. But our conscious awareness ends at
death.
You have proof of that?
What kind of proof are you expecting?
No, I do not have empirical proof. But I do know that conscious
awareness is the result of brain activity,
What if brain activity is the result of the activity of conscious
awareness?

Then when death comes the conscious awareness leaves so the brain ceases
to function,

Do you have proof of the cause and effect relationships?
Post by Anubis
and when we die our brains
no longer produce conscious awareness, so it would appear correct to
state that when we die, we are no longer consciously aware on a
permanent basis.
I suppose you could claim that our conscious awareness lives on past
our death, but that would imply that our conscious awareness is
separate from brain activity,
yes
Post by Anubis
which defies what we know about the
brain and requires postulating the existence of a soul.
yes
Post by Anubis
That
needlessly increases being, so it violates Occam's Razor.
But does it violate
a - possibility?
b - the idea that the Divine Mind is different from ours?


And anyway Occam;s razor does not always apply to situations. It is
after all only a guide and one chosen as opposed to another.
--
Peter Watson
Anubis
2005-08-15 14:36:33 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:44:45 +0100, Peter Watson
Post by Peter Watson
What if brain activity is the result of the activity of conscious
awareness?
Then when death comes the conscious awareness leaves so the brain ceases
to function,
Do you have proof of the cause and effect relationships?
Define what you mean by proof.

I obviously do not have empirical proof. All I can possibly go on is
science which maintains that conscious awareness is the result of
brain activity.

However it could be possible that we are spirits who animate our
bodies. Plato believed that man was like a rider on a horse. But to
believe in this you have to foresake science.

Science is never wrong, only incomplete. If a theory has passed the
tests of being capable of explaining physical reality, then you cannot
expect that theory to be found wrong later - only found to be
incomplete.

For example, Relativity shows that Newton's Laws are incomplete. It
does not show that they are wrong. If Newton's Laws were wrong, then
we used the wrong physics to land men on the Moon. How could that be -
to land men on the Moon using wrong physics. Clearly that is absurd,
and therefore Newton's Laws are correct but incomplete. Relativity
extends Newton's Laws, it does not obliterate them.

Therefore science cannot be expected to give correct results in one
situation and completely contradictory results in another. Conscious
awareness is either the cause of brain activity or the result. All the
science we know and trust to be correct states that conscious
awareness is the result of brain activity.

Therefore you are fighting an impossible battle if you think you are
going to overturn centuries of science with an hypothesis like yours.

Of course, you can deny science by pontification. And you will attract
a following of similar people with the same anti-scientific bigotry.
But you will have to divorce yourself from Reality to make it work. If
you do that, you are going to disconnect from a lot of very rational
people.

But then ignorance is bliss, so why not enjoy it.
Gregory Shearman
2005-08-14 23:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:04:57 +1000, Gregory Shearman
Post by Gregory Shearman
We're here because We're here
If that were true then you would never cease to exist.
Oh rubbish.

We're here because the conditions make it possible for us to be here.

If conditions weren't right, we wouldn't exist.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-Ding Dang, My Dang-a-Long Ling Long."
Anubis
2005-08-13 12:55:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by AlanG
Post by Paul Hyett
So - what stock have most white Texans come from...
http://www.nativetexan.com/images/Jack/2005/09/Pig425.jpg
One of Alan's Northumberland breed.
AlanG
2005-08-13 15:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by AlanG
Post by Paul Hyett
So - what stock have most white Texans come from...
http://www.nativetexan.com/images/Jack/2005/09/Pig425.jpg
One of Alan's Northumberland breed.
Pure texan according to the site.
Got 12 nipples just for you
Anubis
2005-08-13 12:54:07 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:20:35 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
So - what stock have most white Texans come from...
Anglo-Saxon and Germanic are the two most prevalent for Anglos.
Spanish and Indian are the most prevalent for Hispanics. Tree apes and
reptiles represent other minorities.

.
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-13 00:25:10 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
If
science is wrong, then all our intellectual endeavors are wrong. The
world becomes chaos intellectually.
Science is frequently wrong.
Please, don't insult us with bullshit like that.
Science is not frequently wrong. If it were we could not make any
progress because each accomplishment based on previous science would
have to be declared wrong and people would have to start over.
If physics is "frequently wrong", then how did we place men on the
Moon with such precision? They could not have gotten there without
physics. So let's say that you are right and we discover that the
physics of that era is wrong. Does that mean those men landed on the
Moon by sheer luck. Asinine.
**Incorrect. The first Moon (and all subsequent) Moon landings were made
via
the extensive use of Newtonian physics. Einstein proved that Newtonian
physics is wrong. The Moon landings were accomplished by using faulty
physics.
Now that IS bullshit.
Newtonian physics is NOT wrong.
**Sure it is.

It explains things within it's
limits.
**Correct.

When two cars collide, we can calculate the energy using
Newtonian physics, because it's every day.
**No, you cannot. If one (or both) of those cars happens to be travelling at
a substantial fraction of the velocity of light, then Newtonian physics is
out the window.

You can also calculate the
energy by using the much more accurate (but unnecessary in this case)
Einstein physics.
**Depends on the velocities.
You are willfully ignorant.
**Nope. Just pedantically accurate. Anubis made a stupid comment. I was just
demonstrating that he was wrong.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Wally Anglesea™
2005-08-13 01:05:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 00:25:10 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
If
science is wrong, then all our intellectual endeavors are wrong. The
world becomes chaos intellectually.
Science is frequently wrong.
Please, don't insult us with bullshit like that.
Science is not frequently wrong. If it were we could not make any
progress because each accomplishment based on previous science would
have to be declared wrong and people would have to start over.
If physics is "frequently wrong", then how did we place men on the
Moon with such precision? They could not have gotten there without
physics. So let's say that you are right and we discover that the
physics of that era is wrong. Does that mean those men landed on the
Moon by sheer luck. Asinine.
**Incorrect. The first Moon (and all subsequent) Moon landings were made
via
the extensive use of Newtonian physics. Einstein proved that Newtonian
physics is wrong. The Moon landings were accomplished by using faulty
physics.
Now that IS bullshit.
Newtonian physics is NOT wrong.
**Sure it is.
It explains things within it's
limits.
**Correct.
When two cars collide, we can calculate the energy using
Newtonian physics, because it's every day.
**No, you cannot. If one (or both) of those cars happens to be travelling at
a substantial fraction of the velocity of light, then Newtonian physics is
out the window.
Which is why you are an idiot. Cars don't travel at relativistic
velocities. Newton still applies within the limits.
Post by Trevor Wilson
You can also calculate the
energy by using the much more accurate (but unnecessary in this case)
Einstein physics.
**Depends on the velocities.
You are willfully ignorant.
**Nope. Just pedantically accurate.
Nope. Within measurable limits, Newton is not wrong, moron.

Learn physics before you post something as stupid as "newton is wrong"
again.
Post by Trevor Wilson
Anubis made a stupid comment. I was just
demonstrating that he was wrong.
--

Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-13 07:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally Anglesea™
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 00:25:10 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
If
science is wrong, then all our intellectual endeavors are wrong. The
world becomes chaos intellectually.
Science is frequently wrong.
Please, don't insult us with bullshit like that.
Science is not frequently wrong. If it were we could not make any
progress because each accomplishment based on previous science would
have to be declared wrong and people would have to start over.
If physics is "frequently wrong", then how did we place men on the
Moon with such precision? They could not have gotten there without
physics. So let's say that you are right and we discover that the
physics of that era is wrong. Does that mean those men landed on the
Moon by sheer luck. Asinine.
**Incorrect. The first Moon (and all subsequent) Moon landings were made
via
the extensive use of Newtonian physics. Einstein proved that Newtonian
physics is wrong. The Moon landings were accomplished by using faulty
physics.
Now that IS bullshit.
Newtonian physics is NOT wrong.
**Sure it is.
It explains things within it's
limits.
**Correct.
When two cars collide, we can calculate the energy using
Newtonian physics, because it's every day.
**No, you cannot. If one (or both) of those cars happens to be travelling at
a substantial fraction of the velocity of light, then Newtonian physics is
out the window.
Which is why you are an idiot. Cars don't travel at relativistic
velocities.
**There is no reason to assume that an automobile could not travel a such
velocities. Given an adequate power source and absence of frictional losses.
I will certainly acknowledge that it would be impossible for a vehicle
powered by an internal combustion engine, travelling within the Earth's
atmosphere, to approach relativistic velocities. However, it is not
impossible, under appropriate circumstances, just very, very unlikely.

Newton still applies within the limits.
Post by Wally Anglesea™
Post by Trevor Wilson
You can also calculate the
energy by using the much more accurate (but unnecessary in this case)
Einstein physics.
**Depends on the velocities.
You are willfully ignorant.
**Nope. Just pedantically accurate.
Nope. Within measurable limits, Newton is not wrong, moron.
Learn physics before you post something as stupid as "newton is wrong"
again.
**I know enough physics to realise that Newtonian physics are wrong. They're
adequately accurate, for most circumstances, but they're not correct. Only
an approximation of correct. And certainly adequate for NASA to get men to
the Moon, despite those provable, measurable inaccuracies.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Anubis
2005-08-13 01:38:13 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Einstein proved that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Newtonian physics is not wrong. It is limited. Relativity extends it.
The Moon landings were accomplished by using faulty physics.
LOL

You are a very funny troll.
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-13 03:45:32 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Einstein proved that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Newtonian physics is not wrong.
**Yes, it is. Provably, measurably wrong.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Wally Anglesea™
2005-08-13 05:59:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 03:45:32 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Einstein proved that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Newtonian physics is not wrong.
**Yes, it is. Provably, measurably wrong.
You actually don't understand physics, do you?

Care to come into the sci.physics newsgroups, and tell us all why
Newton is wrong?

--

Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
Wally Anglesea™
2005-08-13 06:20:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:59:25 +1000, Wally Anglesea™
Post by Wally Anglesea™
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 03:45:32 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Post by Trevor Wilson
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:35:13 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
Einstein proved that Newtonian physics is wrong.
Newtonian physics is not wrong.
**Yes, it is. Provably, measurably wrong.
You actually don't understand physics, do you?
Care to come into the sci.physics newsgroups, and tell us all why
Newton is wrong?
BTW, I have no idea why I'm arguing with you :-)
--

Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
Mitchell Jones
2005-08-13 15:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Regarding the thread title, the answer is all three.

"Evolution" refers to a natural language description of a visualizable
causal process (that organisms with some traits are more likely to
reproduce than are organisms with other traits) and thus is a theory.

"Evolution" has been demonstrated via logic and, in addition, massively
empirically confirmed; hence it is a fact.

"Evolution" is a valid principle of broad and fundamental importance in
a scientific discipline (i.e., biology) and hence is a law.

Enough said.

--Mitchell Jones
Mike
2005-08-13 19:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Jones
Regarding the thread title, the answer is all three.
"Evolution" refers to a natural language description of a visualizable
causal process (that organisms with some traits are more likely to
reproduce than are organisms with other traits) and thus is a theory.
"Evolution" has been demonstrated via logic and, in addition, massively
empirically confirmed; hence it is a fact.
"Evolution" is a valid principle of broad and fundamental importance in
a scientific discipline (i.e., biology) and hence is a law.
Enough said.
--Mitchell Jones
And well said. Natural selection has broad applicability as a problem
solving methodology. See for instance:

http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol1/hmw/article1.html

Here is a hypothesis for your consideration. "Intelligent Design" is
being pushed by many not as science but as part of a cultural war. The
two sides in this conflict are those who believe that "Man is the
measure of all things" vs. those who believe that "God is the measure
of all things".

This cultural war has broad implications. If man [as in man and women]
is the final measure than right and wrong is what man, and by extension
what governments, decide they are. "Natural rights" do not exist.
There are no constraints on behavior since right is what Man decides.
This position can best be summed up as "freedom from religion".

If God is the final measure of all things than there are inherent
constraints on Man's behavior. Rights are not what governments decide
but rather flow from a Creator. This is the sentiment expressed in the
United State's Declaration of Independence.

Both sides are using science as a weapon. Evolution is being used by
some to justify a cultural position that minimizes the role of a God in
the universe. The other side is simply hitting back with Intelligent
Design.

I personally wish that both sides would agree to leave science out of
it.

--Mike Jr.
mimus
2005-08-13 20:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
If God is the final measure of all things than there are inherent
constraints on Man's behavior.
Gee, I wonder why the religious have never understood that?
--
If we should fight for the good old Cause
By rules of military laws,
And do only what they call just,
The Cause would quickly fall to dust.
This we among ourselves may speak;
But to the wicked or the weak
We must be cautious to declare
Perfection-truths, such as these are.

< _Hudibras_ (sl. ed.)
m***@yahoo.com
2005-08-13 20:25:03 UTC
Permalink
"Intelligent Design" is being pushed by many not as science
but as part of a cultural war. The two sides in this conflict
are those who believe that "Man is the measure of all things"
vs. those who believe that "God is the measure of all things".
This cultural war has broad implications.
It's much larger than that.

From:
The Babel Syndrome
(originally written in 1986)
Posted: 1990 December 21
sci.misc
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.misc/msg/ad4ff87dc2eca0e6?dmode=source

The [...] notes are clarifications or expansions on what was said.

SOCIO-POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES:
What social significance will [the events described in the previous
section] have? There will be a radical break between the past and
future culture. The culture of the next millenium will emerge with
this major event in science. The turning point when the future begins
to will over the past will be 2000. These cultural changes will
parallel major breakthroughs made in the social sciences [and also in
biology]. The culture of the future will encompass the diversity of
the globe into one coherent super-culture [i.e. by which was
specifically meant cyberspace and the Internet] -- and event we are
clearly headed towards even now. [...]

The final outlook is optimistic, but nothing has been mentioned of the
transition between now and the next millenium. The potential for
conflict will reach an extremely dangerous level as the next millenium
nears. The world population will gradually fall into two emerging
camps -- the past-oriented and the future-oriented [which will
substantially fall along gender lines]. The distinguishing feature of
the past-oriented people will be INTOLERANCE -- intolerance for
diversity, non-acceptance of different cultures, a belief in a type of
globalism in which one -- naturally superior -- culture dominates,
opposition to different value systems, overemphasis of tradition --
especially that embodied in NATIONALISM.

Insofar as science spurs on this drastic change, in the past-oriented
camp will emerge a growing ANTI-SCIENTIFIC attitude. Such people will
[project their fallacious conceptions of globalism to demonize their
opposition as purveyors of Orwellianism]. This will fuel the conflict
between the two camps -- a conflict whose intensity will approach
dangerous levels near 2000.

Th economic and political systems may be swept in this sudden current
of change. The ability of existing institutions to cope with the
sudden change will be outstripped. Those institutions that do not make
it through the transition without fundamentally altering their
structure will collapse. These institutions may include the present
governments of the United States and the Soviet Union. When the
political structure of the globe begins to transform [away from the
then-current East-West superpower struggle], the changes of catastrophe
will peak. As the Utopian democracy of fantasy becomes technologically
feasible [i.e. look up "technotopia" on a USENET search] the pressure
for transition will become greater.

[...]

==========

As if on script, a radical red-blue polarization has emerged in the US
from 2000 onward (as well as elsewhere throughout the world,
particularly in the Islamic world, but also Israel, India, China);
described by numerous commentators and is well-enough known not to
require further commentary here.
Mitchell Jones
2005-08-15 05:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Mitchell Jones
Regarding the thread title, the answer is all three.
"Evolution" refers to a natural language description of a visualizable
causal process (that organisms with some traits are more likely to
reproduce than are organisms with other traits) and thus is a theory.
"Evolution" has been demonstrated via logic and, in addition, massively
empirically confirmed; hence it is a fact.
"Evolution" is a valid principle of broad and fundamental importance in
a scientific discipline (i.e., biology) and hence is a law.
Enough said.
--Mitchell Jones
And well said. Natural selection has broad applicability as a problem
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_96/journal/vol1/hmw/article1.html
Here is a hypothesis for your consideration. "Intelligent Design" is
being pushed by many not as science but as part of a cultural war. The
two sides in this conflict are those who believe that "Man is the
measure of all things" vs. those who believe that "God is the measure
of all things".
This cultural war has broad implications. If man [as in man and women]
is the final measure than right and wrong is what man, and by extension
what governments, decide they are. "Natural rights" do not exist.
There are no constraints on behavior since right is what Man decides.
This position can best be summed up as "freedom from religion".
If God is the final measure of all things than there are inherent
constraints on Man's behavior. Rights are not what governments decide
but rather flow from a Creator. This is the sentiment expressed in the
United State's Declaration of Independence.
Both sides are using science as a weapon. Evolution is being used by
some to justify a cultural position that minimizes the role of a God in
the universe. The other side is simply hitting back with Intelligent
Design.
I personally wish that both sides would agree to leave science out of
it.
--Mike Jr
***{The two opposing camps that you described above certainly exist. One
group believes rights are what the government says they are--which
means: we are slaves. And the other group believes rights are what the
priests say they are--which means: we are slaves.

My own view is that when a dispute arises over property, the disputants
should make up a list of all the persons who are willing to adjudicate
the dispute, take turns striking one third of the names off the list
(rounded to the nearest whole number), and, when only one name remains,
that person should adjudicate the dispute in binding arbitration.
Rights, in short, are what neutral arbiters, as identified by means of
the above-described winnowing process, say they are.

What sorts of rights will neutral arbiters come up with? Why, property
rights, of course. That will be the outcome because property rights are
the principles that must be employed, if disputes are to be settled on
the basis of reason.

Bottom line: if the persons who arbitrate disputes over property are
selected by the government or by the priests, then we are slaves,
whereas if they are selected by the disputants themselves, then we are
free.

--Mitchell Jones}***
m***@yahoo.com
2005-08-13 19:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mitchell Jones
Regarding the thread title, the answer is all three.
"Evolution" refers to a natural language description of a visualizable
causal process (that organisms with some traits are more likely to
reproduce than are organisms with other traits) and thus is a theory.
"Evolution" has been demonstrated via logic and, in addition, massively
empirically confirmed; hence it is a fact.
"Evolution" is a valid principle of broad and fundamental importance in
a scientific discipline (i.e., biology) and hence is a law.
A theory comprises a set of [non-trivially] universally quantified
statements. A fact is always a [non-trivially] existentially
quantified statement or else a statement that reduces to a closed
quantifier-free statement.

The general rule is: facts proven (by actually producing the existence
of the item whose existence is described in the fact) are permanently
proven and permanently removed from debate and are, consequently,
presumed false until otherwise proven. Theories disproven (by showing
a counter-example to one of the universal statements involved in the
theory) are permanently disproven (or "falsified").

That process is irreversible and does not backtrack.
[Counter-]existence permanently closes the debate.

Evolution is neither fact nor theory because the term "evolution",
itself, is ambiguous: the body of knowledge going under the term
"evolution" has statements of all the above types.

The existence of speciation is a fact.

The process of speciation (that one species actually can split into two
or more) is a fact.

The relatedness of the different species in a manner conforming to a
hierarchical family tree structure is a fact.

That humans are more closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos than
any of the 3 are to other primates is a fact.

The existence of ancestors and/or older primates of both structural
similarity and genetic similarity (and outright descent) is a fact.

The existence of a continuum consisting of the remains of actual
primates that so thoroughly spans the bridge between between the
different primate species (including humans) that creationists
themselves cannot agree on where the dividing line is to be drawn
between them all -- is a fact.

The process of evolution posited by Darwin is a theory -- as is any law
or set of laws of any science.

The structure underlying geological history and biological history is a
fact.

The actual relation posited between this structure and the actual
occurrence of the history in the manner so posited is a fact [but to
prove it -- or more generally to prove the existence of the Past,
itself, would require time travel].

The existence of a biochemical basis sufficient to drive forth the
process of evolution and speciation (i.e. the existence of DNA, of
mutations, of the ability of mutations to progressively accumulate
without destroying viability, the existence of pathways of change
capable of traversing an arbitrary distance in the abstract space of
possible biological forms without leaving viability at any point) is a
fact.

The positing of the absence of alternative explanations in
contradistinction to the classical Darwinian thesis would be a theory.

The assumption of the absence of the occurrence of supernatural
anomalies (or, more precisely, events that lie outside the currently
known laws of physics) involved in biological history is a theory.

The assumption of the absence of anything lying outside whatever the
currently known laws of physics is a theory -- namely, the physical
theory comprising the laws, themselves.

There, that should clarify matters.
The Skeptic
2005-08-13 20:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.com
Post by Mitchell Jones
Regarding the thread title, the answer is all three.
"Evolution" refers to a natural language description of a visualizable
causal process (that organisms with some traits are more likely to
reproduce than are organisms with other traits) and thus is a theory.
"Evolution" has been demonstrated via logic and, in addition, massively
empirically confirmed; hence it is a fact.
"Evolution" is a valid principle of broad and fundamental importance in
a scientific discipline (i.e., biology) and hence is a law.
A theory comprises a set of [non-trivially] universally quantified
statements. A fact is always a [non-trivially] existentially
quantified statement or else a statement that reduces to a closed
quantifier-free statement.
The general rule is: facts proven (by actually producing the existence
of the item whose existence is described in the fact) are permanently
proven and permanently removed from debate and are, consequently,
presumed false until otherwise proven. Theories disproven (by showing
a counter-example to one of the universal statements involved in the
theory) are permanently disproven (or "falsified").
That process is irreversible and does not backtrack.
[Counter-]existence permanently closes the debate.
Evolution is neither fact nor theory because the term "evolution",
itself, is ambiguous: the body of knowledge going under the term
"evolution" has statements of all the above types.
The existence of speciation is a fact.
The process of speciation (that one species actually can split into two
or more) is a fact.
The relatedness of the different species in a manner conforming to a
hierarchical family tree structure is a fact.
That humans are more closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos than
any of the 3 are to other primates is a fact.
The existence of ancestors and/or older primates of both structural
similarity and genetic similarity (and outright descent) is a fact.
The existence of a continuum consisting of the remains of actual
primates that so thoroughly spans the bridge between between the
different primate species (including humans) that creationists
themselves cannot agree on where the dividing line is to be drawn
between them all -- is a fact.
The process of evolution posited by Darwin is a theory -- as is any law
or set of laws of any science.
The structure underlying geological history and biological history is a
fact.
The actual relation posited between this structure and the actual
occurrence of the history in the manner so posited is a fact [but to
prove it -- or more generally to prove the existence of the Past,
itself, would require time travel].
The existence of a biochemical basis sufficient to drive forth the
process of evolution and speciation (i.e. the existence of DNA, of
mutations, of the ability of mutations to progressively accumulate
without destroying viability, the existence of pathways of change
capable of traversing an arbitrary distance in the abstract space of
possible biological forms without leaving viability at any point) is a
fact.
The positing of the absence of alternative explanations in
contradistinction to the classical Darwinian thesis would be a theory.
The assumption of the absence of the occurrence of supernatural
anomalies (or, more precisely, events that lie outside the currently
known laws of physics) involved in biological history is a theory.
The assumption of the absence of anything lying outside whatever the
currently known laws of physics is a theory -- namely, the physical
theory comprising the laws, themselves.
There, that should clarify matters.
It only clarifies that someone who wants to believe that evolution is a
fact has stated here for all to read that it is a fact.
m***@yahoo.com
2005-08-13 20:45:44 UTC
Permalink
It [sic] only clarifies that someone who wants to believe that evolution
is a fact has stated here for all to read that it is a fact.
It clarifies what is a fact (an existential) and what is a theory (a
body of universals). Belief is irrelevant. Nobody disputes the
characterizations given in the quoted article on any side of any debate
(conspicuously, not even you).
The Skeptic
2005-08-13 20:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@yahoo.com
It [sic] only clarifies that someone who wants to believe that evolution
is a fact has stated here for all to read that it is a fact.
It clarifies what is a fact (an existential) and what is a theory (a
body of universals). Belief is irrelevant. Nobody disputes the
characterizations given in the quoted article on any side of any debate
(conspicuously, not even you).
Belief is highly relevant, since you might well be playing the role of
the Catholic Church during Galileo's time. I'm sure they felt that it
was a fact that the Sun revolved around the Earth and considered
Galileo's beliefs on the matter irrelevant.
Pakuranga Observer
2005-08-13 02:34:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:06:35 +0100, Paul Hyett
Free will comes from quantum mechanics which decribes unknowable
aspects of physical processes. That actually leads to a better
Universe.
"If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong,
then you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of
grit will cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are
utterly random, nothing can make them more disordered. Complete
randomness at the heart of things is the most stable situation
imaginable - a divinely clever way to build a universe."
-- Heinz Pagels
Would you rather be a drone?
Evolution is a farce.
Anubis
2005-08-13 06:37:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:34:33 +1200, Pakuranga Observer
Post by Pakuranga Observer
Evolution is a farce.
Not that bad. It does explain some phenomena. It's problem is that it
is insufficient to explain all the phenomena. It take a lot of
pontification, bluster and junk science to rationalize its
inadequacies.

The reason anyone even bothers defending it is because it is part of
the atheist agenda. To a man, zealous proponents of Darwinism are
atheists.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-13 12:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:34:33 +1200, Pakuranga Observer
Post by Pakuranga Observer
Evolution is a farce.
Not that bad. It does explain some phenomena. It's problem is that it
is insufficient to explain all the phenomena. It take a lot of
pontification, bluster and junk science to rationalize its
inadequacies.
The reason anyone even bothers defending it is because it is part of
the atheist agenda. To a man, zealous proponents of Darwinism are
atheists.
Idiot, there is not nor ever has been a "atheist agenda", "atheist
movement" or "Atheist conspiracy". There is however a long history of
religious nutbars conducting witch hunts for anyone they can blame for
the failure of their own twisted right wing policies.
Anubis
2005-08-13 14:26:17 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:08:08 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Idiot,
You are the idiot around here.
Post by Ford Prefect
there is not nor ever has been a "atheist agenda"
Yes there is an atheist agenda. It is the same as the leftist queer
agenda. The main goal is to extend the reach of the godless
collectivist state so everyone is enslaved.

Religion teaches the opposite, that man is a sacred individual in the
eyes of God and not a worthless drone of the perverted state. That's
why atheists have to promote junk science like Darwinism.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-13 15:28:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:08:08 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Idiot,
You are the idiot around here.
Post by Ford Prefect
there is not nor ever has been a "atheist agenda"
Yes there is an atheist agenda. It is the same as the leftist queer
agenda. The main goal is to extend the reach of the godless
collectivist state so everyone is enslaved.
Religion teaches the opposite, that man is a sacred individual in the
eyes of God and not a worthless drone of the perverted state. That's
why atheists have to promote junk science like Darwinism.
Atheists have no agenda, organization, dogma or leaders, they are simply
individuals that don't believe in superstition. The only ones with an
agenda are the religious fundamentalists whose whole organization is
bent on attacking anyone who does not agree with their dogma.
Anubis
2005-08-13 17:05:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:28:10 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists have no agenda, organization, dogma or leaders, they are simply
individuals that don't believe in superstition.
They believe in mysticism, which is superstition.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-13 17:50:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:28:10 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists have no agenda, organization, dogma or leaders, they are simply
individuals that don't believe in superstition.
They believe in mysticism, which is superstition.
Bullshit, get yourself a dictionary and use it. Atheists do not believe
any god exists, period. Mysticism is the belief that direct knowledge of
God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through
subjective experience (as intuition or insight).
mimus
2005-08-13 18:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Anubis
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:28:10 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists have no agenda, organization, dogma or leaders, they are simply
individuals that don't believe in superstition.
They believe in mysticism, which is superstition.
Bullshit, get yourself a dictionary and use it. Atheists do not believe
any god exists, period. Mysticism is the belief that direct knowledge of
God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through
subjective experience (as intuition or insight).
Yer tryin' to reason with someone who believes that metaphysics is science
. . . .
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
Anubis
2005-08-13 18:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Yer tryin' to reason with someone who believes that metaphysics is science
That's because metaphysics is a science. It is not physical science,
but then if you were educated in the liberal arts you would know that
not every science is a physical science.
Wally Anglesea™
2005-08-13 21:46:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by mimus
Yer tryin' to reason with someone who believes that metaphysics is science
That's because metaphysics is a science. It is not physical science,
but then if you were educated in the liberal arts you would know that
not every science is a physical science.
Oh dear. "educated in the liberal arts"

Mate, while the liberal arts wankers gaze at their navels, pretending
to be "science" Science gave you your 'puter, and provides the time
for you to navel gaze, and waste your time online instead of having to
struggle to find something to eat.
--

Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
mimus
2005-08-13 21:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wally Anglesea™
Post by Anubis
Post by mimus
Yer tryin' to reason with someone who believes that metaphysics is science
That's because metaphysics is a science. It is not physical science,
but then if you were educated in the liberal arts you would know that
not every science is a physical science.
Oh dear. "educated in the liberal arts"
Mate, while the liberal arts wankers gaze at their navels, pretending
to be "science" Science gave you your 'puter, and provides the time
for you to navel gaze, and waste your time online instead of having to
struggle to find something to eat.
Millenia of "liberal arts", including "metaphysics", and four centuries at
best of science:

You decide which has done more for us.
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
Wally Anglesea™
2005-08-13 21:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:28:10 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists have no agenda, organization, dogma or leaders, they are simply
individuals that don't believe in superstition.
They believe in mysticism, which is superstition.
Did you take a particularly strong stupid pill today?

I know several atheists. They don't believe in mysticism.

Lumping all atheists into a single box, is like saying all Christians
are fundamentalists.

--

Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
Paul Hyett
2005-08-14 06:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:28:10 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists have no agenda, organization, dogma or leaders, they are simply
individuals that don't believe in superstition.
They believe in mysticism, which is superstition.
I don't believe in mysticism - so that rather fucks that theory...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Anubis
2005-08-14 11:46:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:32:01 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
They believe in mysticism, which is superstition.
I don't believe in mysticism - so that rather fucks that theory...
If you do not acknowledge that the Supreme Being is the cause of the
Existence of the Universe, then what do you believe is the cause?

If you say that the Universe is its own cause you are indulging in
mysticism, because there is no way that could happen in Realism. If
you say that the Universe does not need a cause, then you are
indulging in mysticism because there is no way that could happen in
Realism.

In Realism, all material effects require a cause and that includes the
Universe. To claim otherwise is to invoke mysticism.
t***@nocomment.com
2005-08-14 13:47:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:32:01 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
They believe in mysticism, which is superstition.
I don't believe in mysticism - so that rather fucks that theory...
If you do not acknowledge that the Supreme Being is the cause of the
Existence of the Universe, then what do you believe is the cause?
So can you tell me what the cause is of the existence of the Supreme Being?
Post by Anubis
If you say that the Universe is its own cause you are indulging in
mysticism, because there is no way that could happen in Realism. If
you say that the Universe does not need a cause, then you are
indulging in mysticism because there is no way that could happen in
Realism.
In Realism, all material effects require a cause and that includes the
Universe. To claim otherwise is to invoke mysticism.
Anubis
2005-08-14 15:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@nocomment.com
So can you tell me what the cause is of the existence of the Supreme Being?
The Supreme Being is the cause of its own existence.

Existence (Reality) did not just happen one day - it has been there
always. It is not possible for Existence to have ever not existed. It
must have always existed.

The Supreme Being is Existence.
t***@nocomment.com
2005-08-14 15:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by t***@nocomment.com
So can you tell me what the cause is of the existence of the Supreme Being?
The Supreme Being is the cause of its own existence.
Existence (Reality) did not just happen one day - it has been there
always. It is not possible for Existence to have ever not existed. It
must have always existed.
But that same logic cannot apply to the universe?
Post by Anubis
The Supreme Being is Existence.
Anubis
2005-08-14 15:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@nocomment.com
But that same logic cannot apply to the universe?
No. The reason is because the Universe is mutable and therefore cannot
have Existence as part of its essence. If it did, it would always be
what it was originally designed to be because whatever that design was
it included being what it is forever.

The only entity whose essence is Existence is the Supreme Being, who
is not mutable. Existence is the same as it has always been - it
cannot change to something else, namely non-existence.
t***@nocomment.com
2005-08-14 16:06:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by t***@nocomment.com
But that same logic cannot apply to the universe?
No. The reason is because the Universe is mutable and therefore cannot
have Existence as part of its essence. If it did, it would always be
what it was originally designed to be because whatever that design was
it included being what it is forever.
The only entity whose essence is Existence is the Supreme Being, who
is not mutable.
How do you know that? Has he told you he is not mutable or is this just
your gut feel?

Existence is the same as it has always been - it
Post by Anubis
cannot change to something else, namely non-existence.
AlanG
2005-08-14 15:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by t***@nocomment.com
So can you tell me what the cause is of the existence of the Supreme Being?
The Supreme Being is the cause of its own existence.
Existence (Reality) did not just happen one day - it has been there
always. It is not possible for Existence to have ever not existed. It
must have always existed.
The Supreme Being is Existence.
you need this book and the companion volumes then all will be clear
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0091898234/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/026-7403084-2484406

It's as good a theory as anything else
Paul Hyett
2005-08-15 06:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by t***@nocomment.com
So can you tell me what the cause is of the existence of the Supreme Being?
The Supreme Being is the cause of its own existence.
Existence (Reality) did not just happen one day - it has been there
always. It is not possible for Existence to have ever not existed. It
must have always existed.
The Supreme Being is Existence.
Wow - after such circular bullshit, I am converted. :)
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Anubis
2005-08-15 10:06:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:16:11 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
The Supreme Being is Existence.
Wow - after such circular bullshit, I am converted. :)
That is not circular. The fact that you consider it bullshit speaks
volumes about your understanding of science.
Paul Hyett
2005-08-16 06:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:16:11 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
The Supreme Being is Existence.
Wow - after such circular bullshit, I am converted. :)
That is not circular. The fact that you consider it bullshit speaks
volumes about your understanding of science.
Who said anything about science - I thought you were talking about
metaphysics?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Anubis
2005-08-16 12:46:45 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:21:03 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Who said anything about science - I thought you were talking about
metaphysics?
Metaphysics is one of the sciences. It is not a physical science
although it is based on one, namely physics.
--
Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

The ideological elites at the U.N. see the world as a collection of
helpless and victimized peoples beset by an ever-widening array of
"problems" ranging from civil wars to racial inequality that can be
solved only by an outside, all-knowing bureaucracy - the U.N. itself.
Their ultimate agenda is the disappearance of the sovereign nations
they claim to represent and the advent of a uniform global
government in which no one will be represented except the elites
themselves.
Wally Anglesea™
2005-08-16 21:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:21:03 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Who said anything about science - I thought you were talking about
metaphysics?
Metaphysics is one of the sciences. It is not a physical science
although it is based on one, namely physics.
Interesting interpretation. Unfortunately, it's more philosophical.

--

Read all about Australia's biggest doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"
Anubis
2005-08-17 12:32:14 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 21:07:34 GMT, Wally Anglesea™
Post by Wally Anglesea™
Post by Anubis
Metaphysics is one of the sciences. It is not a physical science
although it is based on one, namely physics.
Interesting interpretation. Unfortunately, it's more philosophical.
Philosophy is one of the sciences.
--
Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

The ideological elites at the U.N. see the world as a collection of
helpless and victimized peoples beset by an ever-widening array of
"problems" ranging from civil wars to racial inequality that can be
solved only by an outside, all-knowing bureaucracy - the U.N. itself.
Their ultimate agenda is the disappearance of the sovereign nations
they claim to represent and the advent of a uniform global
government in which no one will be represented except the elites
themselves.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-14 14:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:32:01 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
They believe in mysticism, which is superstition.
I don't believe in mysticism - so that rather fucks that theory...
If you do not acknowledge that the Supreme Being is the cause of the
Existence of the Universe, then what do you believe is the cause?
If you say that the Universe is its own cause you are indulging in
mysticism, because there is no way that could happen in Realism. If
you say that the Universe does not need a cause, then you are
indulging in mysticism because there is no way that could happen in
Realism.
In Realism, all material effects require a cause and that includes the
Universe. To claim otherwise is to invoke mysticism.
Again , buy, borrow or steal a dictionary and come back after you have
used it. Mysticism requires a belief in some kind of higher power,
something Atheists to not subscribe to.
Anubis
2005-08-14 15:23:22 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:51:49 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Again , buy, borrow or steal a dictionary and come back after you have
used it. Mysticism requires a belief in some kind of higher power,
something Atheists to not subscribe to.
A "higher power" is not God. Atheists invoke such higher powers as a
substitute for God.
t***@nocomment.com
2005-08-14 15:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:51:49 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Again , buy, borrow or steal a dictionary and come back after you have
used it. Mysticism requires a belief in some kind of higher power,
something Atheists to not subscribe to.
A "higher power" is not God. Atheists invoke such higher powers as a
substitute for God.
Most atheists do not.
Anubis
2005-08-14 15:57:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@nocomment.com
Post by Anubis
A "higher power" is not God. Atheists invoke such higher powers as a
substitute for God.
Most atheists do not.
Then how do atheists account for the existence of the Universe?

Do atheists accept the Apprehension of Being? By that I mean do they
accept the Authority of the Senses? Do they accept the existence of
"something out there", that is, the existence of the objective world?
Or do they believe that the only world exists in their mind, that all
meaning is subjectively based?

Do atheists accept the Principle of Consistence? By that I mean do
they accept that objective Reality will only allow something to exist,
or not exist, at one time. There cannot be both "A" and "Not-A"
simultaneously. This is also known as the Principle of
Non-Contradiction.

Do atheists accept the Principle of Causality? By that I mean do they
accept that for every effect in the Universe, there was an antecedent
cause. Notice I said "in the Universe". There is one entity in reality
whose essence is Existence and therefore does not require a separate
cause. Causality is a property of finite Being, which does not have
Existence as part of its essence and therefore relies on a spearate
Being for its existence.
t***@nocomment.com
2005-08-14 16:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by t***@nocomment.com
Post by Anubis
A "higher power" is not God. Atheists invoke such higher powers as a
substitute for God.
Most atheists do not.
Then how do atheists account for the existence of the Universe?
Well, I can't speak for other atheists but in my case, I just don't
know. Makes more sense than just making something up.
Post by Anubis
Do atheists accept the Apprehension of Being? By that I mean do they
accept the Authority of the Senses? Do they accept the existence of
"something out there", that is, the existence of the objective world?
Or do they believe that the only world exists in their mind, that all
meaning is subjectively based?
Do atheists accept the Principle of Consistence? By that I mean do
they accept that objective Reality will only allow something to exist,
or not exist, at one time. There cannot be both "A" and "Not-A"
simultaneously. This is also known as the Principle of
Non-Contradiction.
Do atheists accept the Principle of Causality? By that I mean do they
accept that for every effect in the Universe, there was an antecedent
cause. Notice I said "in the Universe". There is one entity in reality
whose essence is Existence and therefore does not require a separate
cause. Causality is a property of finite Being, which does not have
Existence as part of its essence and therefore relies on a spearate
Being for its existence.
AlanG
2005-08-14 16:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by t***@nocomment.com
Post by Anubis
A "higher power" is not God. Atheists invoke such higher powers as a
substitute for God.
Most atheists do not.
Then how do atheists account for the existence of the Universe?
Why should they?
Ford Prefect
2005-08-14 17:08:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by t***@nocomment.com
Post by Anubis
A "higher power" is not God. Atheists invoke such higher powers as a
substitute for God.
Most atheists do not.
Then how do atheists account for the existence of the Universe?
Do atheists accept the Apprehension of Being? By that I mean do they
accept the Authority of the Senses? Do they accept the existence of
"something out there", that is, the existence of the objective world?
Or do they believe that the only world exists in their mind, that all
meaning is subjectively based?
Do atheists accept the Principle of Consistence? By that I mean do
they accept that objective Reality will only allow something to exist,
or not exist, at one time. There cannot be both "A" and "Not-A"
simultaneously. This is also known as the Principle of
Non-Contradiction.
Do atheists accept the Principle of Causality? By that I mean do they
accept that for every effect in the Universe, there was an antecedent
cause. Notice I said "in the Universe". There is one entity in reality
whose essence is Existence and therefore does not require a separate
cause. Causality is a property of finite Being, which does not have
Existence as part of its essence and therefore relies on a spearate
Being for its existence.
Blah, blah, double blah. See the time you waste with mind bending
twaddle over an issue that is so simple? Atheists are individuals who
simply do not believe in gods, not a church or a dedicated movement of
followers who subscribe to any of the principles above. Why must you
complicate things to such a degree, get outside and enjoy your life,
your family, friends and community. The answers to your questions are in
your own back yard, not in the infinity of the universe.
Paul Hyett
2005-08-15 06:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by t***@nocomment.com
Post by Anubis
A "higher power" is not God. Atheists invoke such higher powers as a
substitute for God.
Most atheists do not.
Then how do atheists account for the existence of the Universe?
ISTM most people have neither the time or the inclination to ponder such
questions.
Post by Anubis
Do atheists accept the Apprehension of Being?
Do atheists accept the Principle of Consistence?
Do atheists accept the Principle of Causality?
I doubt they give a shit about any of them. Mostly they're concentrating
on trivial matters like earning a living & feeding their families...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Anubis
2005-08-15 10:08:18 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:22:22 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
Then how do atheists account for the existence of the Universe?
ISTM most people have neither the time or the inclination to ponder such
questions.
Then they are maintaining their atheism on blind faith.
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
Do atheists accept the Apprehension of Being?
Do atheists accept the Principle of Consistence?
Do atheists accept the Principle of Causality?
I doubt they give a shit about any of them. Mostly they're concentrating
on trivial matters like earning a living & feeding their families...
Then they are just amateurs - people with an opinion which they are
unable to defend using rational argument.
Paul Hyett
2005-08-16 06:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:22:22 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
Then how do atheists account for the existence of the Universe?
ISTM most people have neither the time or the inclination to ponder such
questions.
Then they are maintaining their atheism on blind faith.
Isn't it somewhat hypocritical to consider that OK for theists, but not
for atheists?
Post by Anubis
Post by Paul Hyett
I doubt they give a shit about any of them. Mostly they're concentrating
on trivial matters like earning a living & feeding their families...
Then they are just amateurs - people with an opinion which they are
unable to defend using rational argument.
People are entitled to believe what they like, whether or not they are
willing or able to defend them articulately.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Anubis
2005-08-16 12:48:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:23:49 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
Then they are maintaining their atheism on blind faith.
Isn't it somewhat hypocritical to consider that OK for theists, but not
for atheists?
Not as hypocritical as when atheists castigate theists because they
use blind faith.
Post by Paul Hyett
People are entitled to believe what they like, whether or not they are
willing or able to defend them articulately.
Indeed. You just explained the ignorance of the masses.
--
Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

The ideological elites at the U.N. see the world as a collection of
helpless and victimized peoples beset by an ever-widening array of
"problems" ranging from civil wars to racial inequality that can be
solved only by an outside, all-knowing bureaucracy - the U.N. itself.
Their ultimate agenda is the disappearance of the sovereign nations
they claim to represent and the advent of a uniform global
government in which no one will be represented except the elites
themselves.
BOB
2005-08-16 14:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:23:49 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
Then they are maintaining their atheism on blind faith.
Isn't it somewhat hypocritical to consider that OK for theists, but not
for atheists?
Not as hypocritical as when atheists castigate theists because they
use blind faith.
Why is it hypocritical? It's true, isn't it?
Post by Anubis
Post by Paul Hyett
People are entitled to believe what they like, whether or not they are
willing or able to defend them articulately.
Indeed. You just explained the ignorance of the masses.
Their called "the flock" in many churches. As in sheep.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-14 16:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:51:49 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Again , buy, borrow or steal a dictionary and come back after you have
used it. Mysticism requires a belief in some kind of higher power,
something Atheists to not subscribe to.
A "higher power" is not God. Atheists invoke such higher powers as a
substitute for God.
Better get that dictionary out again, Atheists do not believe in the
supernatural.
Anubis
2005-08-14 17:06:19 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:41:59 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Anubis
A "higher power" is not God. Atheists invoke such higher powers as a
substitute for God.
Better get that dictionary out again,
Metaphysics from the dictionary, eh. No wonder you don't know what you
are talking about.
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists do not believe in the supernatural.
Just what do atheists believe in?
--
Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

The world is governed by very different personages from
what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.
-- Benjamin Disraeli
AlanG
2005-08-14 17:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:41:59 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Anubis
A "higher power" is not God. Atheists invoke such higher powers as a
substitute for God.
Better get that dictionary out again,
Metaphysics from the dictionary, eh. No wonder you don't know what you
are talking about.
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists do not believe in the supernatural.
Just what do atheists believe in?
You tell us.
'atheist' is a word coined by those who believe there exists a magic
pixie to describe those who do not believe there exists a magic pixie.
If the believers in magic pixies had never existed then the word
'atheist' would not exist.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-14 17:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:41:59 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by Anubis
A "higher power" is not God. Atheists invoke such higher powers as a
substitute for God.
Better get that dictionary out again,
Metaphysics from the dictionary, eh. No wonder you don't know what you
are talking about.
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists do not believe in the supernatural.
Just what do atheists believe in?
I don't know why you insist that Atheists subscribe to any set dogma
like organized religion, but I do have a few notions**. As I've tried to
tell you before, atheists are individuals who may believe the universe
is an alien's dream, the result of a bit of bad beef or a lab experiment
gone wrong somewhere in alpha centuri. The only thing in common they
share is a lack of believe in any gods.

** Likely the idea of atheist's not being an organized threat led by
some hidden agenda blows your whole reason for targeting them as an
enemy of Christian cause. A cause without enemies is forced to question
itself and its actions.
Paul Hyett
2005-08-15 06:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists do not believe in the supernatural.
Just what do atheists believe in?
Living their life?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
mimus
2005-08-14 17:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:51:49 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Again , buy, borrow or steal a dictionary and come back after you have
used it. Mysticism requires a belief in some kind of higher power,
something Atheists to not subscribe to.
A "higher power" is not God. Atheists invoke such higher powers as a
substitute for God.
No, religious movements like Alcoholics Anonymous use that weasel- phrase
in an attempt to pretend they're not religious.
--
If we should fight for the good old Cause
By rules of military laws,
And do only what they call just,
The Cause would quickly fall to dust.
This we among ourselves may speak;
But to the wicked or the weak
We must be cautious to declare
Perfection-truths, such as these are.

< _Hudibras_ (sl. ed.)
Paul Hyett
2005-08-15 06:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:32:01 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
They believe in mysticism, which is superstition.
I don't believe in mysticism - so that rather fucks that theory...
If you do not acknowledge that the Supreme Being is the cause of the
Existence of the Universe, then what do you believe is the cause?
I don't know, but I remain confident that science will determine the
cause.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Anubis
2005-08-15 10:05:48 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:14:54 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
If you do not acknowledge that the Supreme Being is the cause of the
Existence of the Universe, then what do you believe is the cause?
I don't know, but I remain confident that science will determine the
cause.
Science can't determine the cause for Existence because Existence is
something outside the Universe.
Paul Hyett
2005-08-16 06:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by Paul Hyett
I don't know, but I remain confident that science will determine the
cause.
Science can't determine the cause for Existence because Existence is
something outside the Universe.
You can't prove there is *anything* outside the universe.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Anubis
2005-08-16 12:52:10 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:24:47 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
Science can't determine the cause for Existence because Existence is
something outside the Universe.
You can't prove there is *anything* outside the universe.
Sure I can. I just can't show you.

Look at a table top and watch some tacks move around on their own -
nothing is touching them. You can believe that they are animated on
their own - just like atheists claim the Universe exists on its own -
but that would be unscientific.

Someone comes along and points out to you that there must be a magnet
under the table that is causing the tacks to move around. He explains
how magnets can influence tacks based on a scientific explanation. But
you don't believe him because you have not seen the magnet for
yourself.

So what is making the tacks move around?
--
Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

The ideological elites at the U.N. see the world as a collection of
helpless and victimized peoples beset by an ever-widening array of
"problems" ranging from civil wars to racial inequality that can be
solved only by an outside, all-knowing bureaucracy - the U.N. itself.
Their ultimate agenda is the disappearance of the sovereign nations
they claim to represent and the advent of a uniform global
government in which no one will be represented except the elites
themselves.
BOB
2005-08-16 14:32:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:24:47 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
Science can't determine the cause for Existence because Existence is
something outside the Universe.
You can't prove there is *anything* outside the universe.
Sure I can. I just can't show you.
That's a contradiction. If you can't show us, you can't prove it.
Post by Anubis
Look at a table top and watch some tacks move around on their own -
nothing is touching them. You can believe that they are animated on
their own - just like atheists claim the Universe exists on its own -
but that would be unscientific.
Someone comes along and points out to you that there must be a magnet
under the table that is causing the tacks to move around. He explains
how magnets can influence tacks based on a scientific explanation. But
you don't believe him because you have not seen the magnet for
yourself.
Is that supposed to be some kind of analogy for the the "nothing existing
outside of the universe"?
Post by Anubis
So what is making the tacks move around?
What does that question have to do with the universe or existence?
Ford Prefect
2005-08-16 18:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:24:47 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
Science can't determine the cause for Existence because Existence is
something outside the Universe.
You can't prove there is *anything* outside the universe.
Sure I can. I just can't show you.
Look at a table top and watch some tacks move around on their own -
nothing is touching them. You can believe that they are animated on
their own - just like atheists claim the Universe exists on its own -
but that would be unscientific.
Someone comes along and points out to you that there must be a magnet
under the table that is causing the tacks to move around. He explains
how magnets can influence tacks based on a scientific explanation. But
you don't believe him because you have not seen the magnet for
yourself.
So what is making the tacks move around?
A dumb analogy, an atheist would look for the reason the tacks were
moving on their own. Atheists tend to be skeptics by nature, but don't
just wake one morning and decide there is no god/god etc.... it's
generally arrived upon after years of observation and questioning the
status quo.
c***@ntlworld.com
2005-08-16 19:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists tend to be skeptics by nature, but don't
just wake one morning and decide there is no god/god etc.... it's
generally arrived upon after years of observation and questioning the
status quo.
'it takes a lot more faith to be an atheist'
Darrell Kestner
2005-08-16 21:15:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@ntlworld.com
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists tend to be skeptics by nature, but don't
just wake one morning and decide there is no god/god etc.... it's
generally arrived upon after years of observation and questioning the
status quo.
'it takes a lot more faith to be an atheist'
"slogans are cheap and meaningless"
BOB
2005-08-16 23:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@ntlworld.com
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists tend to be skeptics by nature, but don't
just wake one morning and decide there is no god/god etc.... it's
generally arrived upon after years of observation and questioning the
status quo.
'it takes a lot more faith to be an atheist'
You've got to be kidding...
p***@yahoo.com
2005-08-16 16:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
If you say that the Universe is its own cause you are indulging in
mysticism, because there is no way that could happen in Realism.
*Empirical* realism says that causes exist, contingently, where they
can be observed. The idea that they have a necessary, apriori existence
is rationalism which is a close cousin to idealism.
.
Anubis
2005-08-16 19:09:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@yahoo.com
Post by Anubis
If you say that the Universe is its own cause you are indulging in
mysticism, because there is no way that could happen in Realism.
*Empirical* realism says that causes exist, contingently, where they
can be observed. The idea that they have a necessary, apriori existence
is rationalism which is a close cousin to idealism.
What the Hell kind of crap are they teaching people these days.
--
Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

The ideological elites at the U.N. see the world as a collection of
helpless and victimized peoples beset by an ever-widening array of
"problems" ranging from civil wars to racial inequality that can be
solved only by an outside, all-knowing bureaucracy - the U.N. itself.
Their ultimate agenda is the disappearance of the sovereign nations
they claim to represent and the advent of a uniform global
government in which no one will be represented except the elites
themselves.
AlanG
2005-08-14 13:26:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:32:01 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by Paul Hyett
Post by Anubis
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:28:10 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
Atheists have no agenda, organization, dogma or leaders, they are simply
individuals that don't believe in superstition.
They believe in mysticism, which is superstition.
I don't believe in mysticism - so that rather fucks that theory...
mys·ti·cism (mîs¹tî-sîz´em) noun
1. a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate
reality or God. b. The experience of such communion as described by
mystics.
2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or
intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly
accessible by subjective experience.
3. Vague, groundless speculation.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third
Edition is licensed from Houghton Mifflin Company. Copyright © 1992 by
Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Selected Illustrations from the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia.
Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press.

All that sounds more like Bob the pork fondler than any atheist
m***@xtra.co.nz
2005-08-13 07:33:07 UTC
Permalink
He cannot violate the law of contradiction.
Oh so your god can tie a not that he cant untie? (I can) But dont you
mystics reckon your god to do any and everything?


Michael Gordge
Anubis
2005-08-13 12:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
He cannot violate the law of contradiction.
Oh so your god can tie a not that he cant untie? (I can) But dont you
mystics reckon your god to do any and everything?
God cannot be required to do something that results in a
contradiction. That's because what is being required does not exist in
objective reality.
m***@xtra.co.nz
2005-08-13 20:41:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
He cannot violate the law of contradiction.
Oh so your god can tie a not that he cant untie? (I can) But dont you
mystics reckon your god to do any and everything?
God cannot be required to do something that results in a
contradiction. That's because what is being required does not exist in
objective reality.
Oh so its not possible to tie a not that cant be untied? So who unties
the knots and tangles in your fishing line? Dont tell me, Jesus can
walk where you fish.


Michael Gordge
BOB
2005-08-13 22:45:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
He cannot violate the law of contradiction.
Oh so your god can tie a not that he cant untie? (I can) But dont you
mystics reckon your god to do any and everything?
God cannot be required to do something that results in a
contradiction. That's because what is being required does not exist in
objective reality.
OK, how about something simple then. Can your god do something simple like
showing everyone that it exists? That shouldn't be too difficult for an
all powerful omnipotent supernatural being, right?
mimus
2005-08-13 23:30:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by BOB
Post by Anubis
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
He cannot violate the law of contradiction.
Oh so your god can tie a not that he cant untie? (I can) But dont you
mystics reckon your god to do any and everything?
God cannot be required to do something that results in a
contradiction. That's because what is being required does not exist in
objective reality.
OK, how about something simple then. Can your god do something simple like
showing everyone that it exists? That shouldn't be too difficult for an
all powerful omnipotent supernatural being, right?
It's funny how gods are never ever allowed to speak and act for themselves,
isn't it?

As a matter of fact, I'd say it's downright suspicious.
--
And now the saints began their reign,
For which th' had hankered so long in vain,
And felt such bowel-hankerings,
To see an empire, all of kings,
Delivered from th' Egyptian awe
Of justice, government and law.

< _Hudibras_
m***@xtra.co.nz
2005-08-13 23:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
It's funny how gods are never ever allowed to speak and act for themselves,
isn't it?
Oh so you dont think when a mystic open its mouth to speak its actually
their god speaking?

Man (the mystics) created god, thats why only they can speak for god.

Be really good if the mystics would accept their faith for what it is,
ie a belief in themselves.


Michael Gordge
BOB
2005-08-14 03:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Post by BOB
Post by Anubis
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
He cannot violate the law of contradiction.
Oh so your god can tie a not that he cant untie? (I can) But dont
you mystics reckon your god to do any and everything?
God cannot be required to do something that results in a
contradiction. That's because what is being required does not exist
in objective reality.
OK, how about something simple then. Can your god do something
simple like showing everyone that it exists? That shouldn't be too
difficult for an all powerful omnipotent supernatural being, right?
It's funny how gods are never ever allowed to speak and act for
themselves, isn't it?
I think some of us know the reason why and the rest refuse to acknowledge
that, down deep in their subconscious, they also know why.
Post by mimus
As a matter of fact, I'd say it's downright suspicious.
:o))
Trevor Wilson
2005-08-13 07:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Evolution is a physical force. It is provable through scientific
experimentation. It can be seen in the breeding of dogs and horses.
It can be seen in the ability of viruses to become resistant to
anti-biotics. There are a million billion pieces of evidence to
support evolution as a physical force.
Micro or macro? There is a big difference. You are only speaking of
adaptation.
Whether "evolution" is totally responsible for the existence of life,
however, is much more complex. But evolution is still the likeliest
explanation. There are millions of pieces of fossil to support it.
There are almost none. The fossil record is not going to help argue the
theory of macro evolution.
Why the Missing Link Is Still Missing
The missing link - The fossil record vs.
the Charles Darwin theory of evolution
**Whoops. Old Charlie biy has fucked up in the title. Charles Darwin did not
propose the "theory of evolution". Charles Darwin wrote the Origin of
Species. His theory was that Natural Selection was the mechanism by which
Evolution operated. Of course, old Charlie (Colson) would not want to let
some actual FACTS get into his little piece of fiction, would he?
by Charles Colson
Email article to a friend
A store specializing in vintage political paraphernalia displays a
campaign button that reads, "Ronald Reagan is the missing link." It's a
joke that scientists can appreciate, because a century and a half after
Darwin, the missing links in the fossil record are still...missing. The
missing link is the big hole in Darwinism.
**Nope.
And a book by biologist Jeffrey Schwartz recommends ditching Darwin
altogether, and looking for a new explanation of how life developed.
The standard Darwinian theory is that new species arise by the gradual
accumulation of tiny mutations.
**Nope. That is ONE possible explanation. There are others.

The theory predicts that the fossil
record will reveal hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils linking
each species to the next one.
**Nope. Fossils form only under the most extraordinary circumstances.
But the fossil record shows no such thing. Instead, new species appear
suddenly--virtually overnight. As Schwartz puts it, fins turn into legs
suddenly, without a trail of intermediate forms. Similarly, he says, "You
don't see gradual evolution of feathers. You either have feathers or you
don't."
**You don't see a gradual evolution of feathers, for several reasons:
* Feathers do not survive fossilisation.
* Fossils are rare.
Even eyes appear out of nowhere. The Darwinian idea "that an eye evolves
slowly over countless generations through painstaking accumulations of
tiny mutations--that's wrong," Schwartz says.
**Points:
* I don't believe that Darwin ever said such a thing.
* Rudimentary light sensitive organs are found on many animals.
* Animals which live underground often don't have eyes.
No wonder he entitles his book Sudden Origins. And no wonder he's in hot
water in the scientific community.
**Huh? Hot water? With whom?

Ever since Darwin, many biologists
have clung to the hope that the gaps in the fossil record would eventually
be filled in, the missing links discovered. But Schwartz is saying that
the gaps will never be filled in--because the missing links never existed.
He urges biologists to start searching for a new theory to explain the
sudden origins of organic structures.
**Biologists are ALWAYS searching for ways to explain evolution. That is the
nature of science. To question. It is the nature of fundies to accept abject
nonsense, from people who seek to exploit their stupidity.
Schwartz himself thinks that he has found such a theory based on the
action of so-called "homeobox" genes--regulatory genes that switch on and
off during the development of embryos. The theory is that even a small
mutation in a homeobox gene at early stages of development would lead to
major changes later on, as the organism grows.
But most biologists find Schwartz's theory implausible. "It seems a pretty
wild hypothesis," says biologist William McGinnis. Mutations in the
homeobox genes do result in drastically different forms within a species,
McGinnis says, but most often these animals die or are very sick.
You see, to originate a new species by mutations would require a huge
number of coordinated changes all at once.
**No, it would not.

A fish that suddenly develops
lungs, for example, had better develop legs at the same time or it will
simply drown.
**Are you familiar with Axolotls, or lungfish?

A giraffe that develops a long neck must at the same time
develop a specialized heart to pump blood up its long neck.
**Actually, the giraffe has specialised valves, to control blood flow
through its neck. More importantly, however, is that a giraffe has EXACTLY
the same number of vertebrae as a human. We are related species.
But in Schwartz's naturalistic theory, there's no directing force to
coordinate all those changes, so the new forms of life would go
nowhere--except to a graveyard.
Schwartz does do us a favor by pointing out the failure of Darwinism, but
his substitute theory of evolution is no better. Living things exhibit
levels of engineering and design that scientists are only beginning to
grasp--which logically suggests that they are the creation of a great
Engineer, a Divine Designer.
**Nonsense. Living things are not evidence of a "Divne Designer". Living
things are evidence of the power of the DNA molecule.
The theory that best fits the facts is one that starts with an intelligent
cause behind the wonderful complexity of living things
**Nope. The theory that best fits, is the one which looks at all the
available data.
On the other hand, "creationism" or "intelligent design" has virtually
no evidence whatsoever to support it.
That is simply untrue.
**An opinion you are entitled to.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/design.htm
more there than you could deal with in a lifetime
The only "evidence" is a bible
story, which may have even been a metaphor.
Not true
**Yes, true. None of the people who wrote the Bible had any scientific
training.
My personal belief is that God was created by evolution.
Who made you then?
**I can't speak for the other respondent, but my parents made me. If you
know of another system, let us know.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Paul Hyett
2005-08-13 08:17:30 UTC
Permalink
If
science is wrong, then all our intellectual endeavors are wrong. The
world becomes chaos intellectually.
Science is frequently wrong.
Please, don't insult us with bullshit like that.
Hey, back up - if you'd bothered to read beyond the first sentence,
you'd have found he was actually *supporting* science!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
e***@gmail.com
2005-08-13 11:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
It's a THEORY. Everything in science (even the poorly-named Gravity
Law) is only a theory..... to be expounded upon & enhanced as we
experiment & gain more knowledge.



The real question should be - Is there a better explanation for our
existence on earth? The answer presently is no.

troy
Anubis
2005-08-13 12:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@gmail.com
The real question should be - Is there a better explanation for our
existence on earth? The answer presently is no.
The question is whether it is an adequate explanation. The answer is
no. Evolution is an insufficient theory.
1Z
2005-08-13 15:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Not possible. If you accept the Principle of Causality,
Although there is no reason why you should. It is neither a observed
nor a logical truth.
LOL
Things just happen, do they? All those predictions of physics were
just random happenings, are they?
Learn some physics before you make a complete idiot of yourself.
Where there is evidence for causality, ie prediction, then it is an
observed fact. There is no "law" to the effect that causality must
exist even in the absence of evidence. What we learn from physics,
when we learn physics, is that some events do not occur
deterministically.
1Z
2005-08-13 15:20:28 UTC
Permalink
P.S.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/Determinism.pdf
Anubis
2005-08-13 16:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1Z
P.S.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/Determinism.pdf
All quite interesting, in particular the distinction between ontology
and epistemology, something ET Jaynes emphasized.

I can recommend Greg Chaitin's take on all this although I do not
agree with his equating ontological with epistemological. But then
Greg is a mathematician, and we know they do not understand physics
the same as a physicist.

I remind you that before you can engage in meaningful discussions of
metaphysics, you must declare the Worldview you have adopted that
forms the axiomatic foundation for your rational system of argument.
The two most important Worldviews are Realism (Aristotle) and Idealism
(Plato). They are incompatible. For example, Realism demands
consistency whereas Idealism does not. Realism demands causality
whereas Idealism does not. Realism demands objective existence whereas
Idealism is purely subjective.

If you do not have a clear understanding of the Worldview in advance
of a discussion, you and your correspondent will wander aimlessly.

Physics demands the Worldview of Realism. Causality of one of the
major tenets of Realism. There is no way the external world can behave
in an ordered manner without causality. Of course, the subjective
world based on the Worldview of Idealism can display order without
causality. But that world is not the same as the objective world of
physics.
mimus
2005-08-13 16:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Physics demands the Worldview of Realism. Causality of one of the
major tenets of Realism. There is no way the external world can behave
in an ordered manner without causality.
Better to say that there could be no world at all without order, and
causation-- regular and specific spatiotemporal successions of phenomena--
is one kind of order in the world.
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
Anubis
2005-08-13 17:08:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Better to say that there could be no world at all without order, and
causation-- regular and specific spatiotemporal successions of phenomena--
is one kind of order in the world.
Is there any other kind of order?

Without causality, there is no mechanism for anything to happen.

More importantly, without causality nothing could exist.
mimus
2005-08-13 18:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by mimus
Better to say that there could be no world at all without order, and
causation-- regular and specific spatiotemporal successions of phenomena--
is one kind of order in the world.
Is there any other kind of order?
Well . . . yes . . . take a look at my standard "Organization" header . . .
.
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
abelard
2005-08-14 16:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
P.S.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/Determinism.pdf
All quite interesting, in particular the distinction between ontology
and epistemology, something ET Jaynes emphasized.
I can recommend Greg Chaitin's take on all this although I do not
agree with his equating ontological with epistemological. But then
Greg is a mathematician, and we know they do not understand physics
the same as a physicist.
I remind you that before you can engage in meaningful discussions of
metaphysics,
here you appear to be treating the term 'metaphysics' as pointing to
sommat in the real world...
please describe that real world object...
Post by Anubis
you must declare the Worldview you have adopted that
forms the axiomatic foundation for your rational system of argument.
The two most important Worldviews are Realism (Aristotle) and Idealism
(Plato). They are incompatible.
more or less ok
Post by Anubis
For example, Realism demands
consistency whereas Idealism does not.
is a rock consistent with a symphony?
what is your meaning of consistent?
merely a lack of 'contradiction'?
for contradiction you *must* assume an excluded middle......
how can you do that with eg reals? please choose a real world
example...
Post by Anubis
Realism demands causality
whereas Idealism does not. Realism demands objective existence whereas
Idealism is purely subjective.
a human is real....
Post by Anubis
If you do not have a clear understanding of the Worldview in advance
of a discussion, you and your correspondent will wander aimlessly.
Physics demands the Worldview of Realism. Causality of one of the
major tenets of Realism. There is no way the external world can behave
in an ordered manner without causality.
this stt doesn't make sense to me....
i suspect it is ill defined....
Post by Anubis
Of course, the subjective
world based on the Worldview of Idealism can display order without
causality. But that world is not the same as the objective world of
physics.
are you suggesting there are 2 'parallel' 'objective worlds'? :-)
or are you suggesting the world view of physics is a subset of the real
world?

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anubis
2005-08-15 01:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Anubis
I remind you that before you can engage in meaningful discussions of
metaphysics,
here you appear to be treating the term 'metaphysics' as pointing to
sommat in the real world...
please describe that real world object...
Being.
Post by abelard
Post by Anubis
Physics demands the Worldview of Realism. Causality of one of the
major tenets of Realism. There is no way the external world can behave
in an ordered manner without causality.
this stt doesn't make sense to me....
Which part?
Post by abelard
i suspect it is ill defined....
You suspect incorrectly.

Describe what you understand to be "order"? For example, would you
classify the motion of the celestial bodies as "ordered"?

Describe what you understand to be "causality". For example, would you
classify the interaction of physical objects as "causality"?
Post by abelard
are you suggesting there are 2 'parallel' 'objective worlds'? :-)
No.
Post by abelard
or are you suggesting the world view of physics is a subset of the real
world?
What kind of Reality (aka "real world") is the Universe embedded in?

Does Reality consist solely of objective reality? What about
subjective reality? What about the reality of Existence itself?

Describe what you mean by the term "Reality". I mean Being, Existence,
Esse. What do you mean?
abelard
2005-08-15 14:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by abelard
Post by Anubis
I remind you that before you can engage in meaningful discussions of
metaphysics,
here you appear to be treating the term 'metaphysics' as pointing to
sommat in the real world...
please describe that real world object...
Being.
on my desk i have an object labelled 'a computer'.....
it is 'an' object in the real world ('part' of the real world)
to say that is 'being' adds nothing to the fact of its existence....

where is your difficulty (if any) with that formulation
Post by Anubis
Post by abelard
Post by Anubis
Physics demands the Worldview of Realism. Causality of one of the
major tenets of Realism. There is no way the external world can behave
in an ordered manner without causality.
this stt doesn't make sense to me....
Which part?
to start with...you seem to look on 'causation' as an object rather
than as a (human) pov.....
Post by Anubis
Post by abelard
i suspect it is ill defined....
You suspect incorrectly.
Describe what you understand to be "order"? For example, would you
classify the motion of the celestial bodies as "ordered"?
by order, i understand that humans perceive a useful pattern
in the chaos that surrounds them....
swallows also classify the world in terms of food and not food....
that is a species of 'order'....

you seem maybe to be wanting to link order with causation...
i can count 20 potatoes in many different orders....
i therefore apply the order....
Post by Anubis
Describe what you understand to be "causality". For example, would you
classify the interaction of physical objects as "causality"?
no....
i would regard causation (a complex subject) in your simple
situation as action 1 occurring before action (reaction) 2....
as you are well aware this is now discussed under relativism....

causation to me means 'i have enuf data to lay odds'
i *may* choose to call it causation when the odds approach
99%...+....
Post by Anubis
Post by abelard
are you suggesting there are 2 'parallel' 'objective worlds'? :-)
No.
Post by abelard
or are you suggesting the world view of physics is a subset of the real
world?
What kind of Reality (aka "real world") is the Universe embedded in?
my q. was based on your following comment/s

quote on
Post by Anubis
I remind you that before you can engage in meaningful discussions of
metaphysics,
here you appear to be treating the term 'metaphysics' as pointing to
sommat in the real world...
please describe that real world object...
Post by Anubis
you must declare the Worldview you have adopted that
forms the axiomatic foundation for your rational system of argument.
The two most important Worldviews are Realism (Aristotle) and Idealism
(Plato). They are incompatible.
quote off

your are referring to an 'object'....'metaphysics'....
which you claim you cannot discuss *until* you have a stated 'worldview'

a 'worldview' seems to relate to the real world (eg of computers as above)
you seem to be saying you must have a 'view' of that world in order to
discuss 'metaphysics'.....
that suggests to me the 'metaphysics' is a sub set of your 'view' of the
(real) world.....

thus metaphysics may appear to be (in your semantics) a subset of the
'real world' (of computers and elefants)
Post by Anubis
Does Reality consist solely of objective reality?
i am content to start from such an assumption....
Post by Anubis
What about
subjective reality?
subjective reality is part of objective reality....
it is an emanation from the real object called 'life'....

subjective reality is merely that part of what i perceive, that part
which i cannot demonstrate to others...
eg...the pain in my foot when i drop a hammer on my toe....
i can feel the pain....you cannot....
Post by Anubis
What about the reality of Existence itself?
i don't follow that slogan....
reality is....
Post by Anubis
Describe what you mean by the term "Reality". I mean Being, Existence,
Esse. What do you mean?
what i can perceive....what i drop on my foot....my foot....

regards....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anubis
2005-08-15 15:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
on my desk i have an object labelled 'a computer'.....
it is 'an' object in the real world ('part' of the real world)
to say that is 'being' adds nothing to the fact of its existence....
It certainly adds to your awareness of Being.

I agree with you - your awareness of Being has absolutely no
ontological significance to the Being itself. That's a strict
requirement of Realism.

Notice how completely different that is from the Copenhagen
Interpretation, according to which, your awareness of an object's
Being causes that object's Being. If you do not observe the object,
then it does not exist in an explicit eigenstate.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is defunct today - Bell's Theorem and
Quantum Entanglement did it in. Thank God, too - it was a psychotic
way of viewing physics.

There was a cartoon in Physics Today that really pissed off some
self-important people in the physics community because it hit home at
their psychotic way of thinking. The cartoon showed some round heads
with propeller beanies emersed in a sea of foam staring at each other
with puzzled looks. The caption read "Particles in the quantum foam
contemplating the existence of particle physicists."

I wish I had not thrown that issue away. Now I can't find the cartoon.
Post by abelard
where is your difficulty (if any) with that formulation
I do not understand what formulation you are talking about. Please
elaborate.
Post by abelard
to start with...you seem to look on 'causation' as an object rather
than as a (human) pov.....
If I punch you in the nose, the bleeding that results is an effect
that occurred because of the cause I implemented.

I fail to see how you can explain that by a "human pov". But if you
can, I would like to hear it.
Post by abelard
by order, i understand that humans perceive a useful pattern
in the chaos that surrounds them....
It would appear that you have not had either the time or inclination
to read up on Greg Chaitin's website. If you had, then you would know
that order can be mathematically described and even quantified. Order
it would seem is ontological, not epistemological as you claim above.
Post by abelard
you seem maybe to be wanting to link order with causation.
There is no "seem" about it. Order requires causality. Without
causality there can be no order. The mere act of separating order from
chaos requires that something be done to cause it to happen.
.
Post by abelard
i can count 20 potatoes in many different orders....
i therefore apply the order.
Take a look at Chaitin before you go too far off into the weeds.

Any one of those "orders" you claim the potatoes possess must be
confirmable and that means the order must be ontological.
Post by abelard
Post by Anubis
For example, would you
classify the interaction of physical objects as "causality"?
no....
i would regard causation (a complex subject) in your simple
situation as action 1 occurring before action (reaction) 2.
What if action 1 does not appear at all? If action 2 just happens at a
time and place, then would it still just happen at the same time and
place in the absence of action 1?

Notice how causality gives rise to order. Action 1 must precede action
2 if causality is present. That is a particular order of actions.
Post by abelard
as you are well aware this is now discussed under relativism....
I do not understand what you mean by that. Please elaborate.
Post by abelard
Post by Anubis
Describe what you understand to be "causality".
causation to me means 'i have enuf data to lay odds'
i *may* choose to call it causation when the odds approach
99%...+....
You are going to have to give examples of what you are talking about.
I do not want to guess what you are saying.
Post by abelard
here you appear to be treating the term 'metaphysics' as pointing to
sommat in the real world...
please describe that real world object.
Metaphysics is the study of Being, Existence, Esse, considered as an
act which constitutes itself by asserting itself.

Even in physics we have acts that are not material objects. Energy is
not a material object even though it can transform into material
objects. Entropy is not a material object.

Energy is a property of location and action (position and momentum, q
and p). It is not a material object.
Post by abelard
a 'worldview' seems to relate to the real world (eg of computers as above)
you seem to be saying you must have a 'view' of that world in order to
discuss 'metaphysics'.....
that suggests to me the 'metaphysics' is a sub set of your 'view' of the
(real) world.
There is an intimate relationship between the Worldview of Realism and
Metaphysics/Physics. The Worldview is the axiomatic basis for the
formal logic system employed to construct rational propositions in
your study. As we know, the provable propostions are derived from the
axioms. They are different ways of restating the axioms.
Post by abelard
thus metaphysics may appear to be (in your semantics) a subset of the
'real world' (of computers and elefants)
It is not constrained to the world of material objects. Neither is
mathematics. The difference is that mathematics requires the Worldview
of Idealism because it is totally subjective, whereas metaphysics
required the Worldview of Realism because it is based upon physics,
which itself is based on objective reality.
Post by abelard
Post by Anubis
Describe what you mean by the term "Reality". I mean Being, Existence,
Esse. What do you mean?
what i can perceive....what i drop on my foot....my foot....
How about when you contemplate a circle?
p***@yahoo.com
2005-08-16 16:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
It is not constrained to the world of material objects. Neither is
mathematics. The difference is that mathematics requires the Worldview
of Idealism because it is totally subjective,
That is nonsense. Even if a mathematician does believe that
numbers are abstract or mental entities, that doesn't require
them to disbelieve in the existence of material objects.
Post by Anubis
whereas metaphysics
required the Worldview of Realism because it is based upon physics,
Metaphysics is not based on physics (historically, it is the other way
round).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=metaphysics
Post by Anubis
which itself is based on objective reality.
Post by abelard
Post by Anubis
Describe what you mean by the term "Reality". I mean Being, Existence,
Esse. What do you mean?
what i can perceive....what i drop on my foot....my foot....
How about when you contemplate a circle?
1Z
2005-08-16 15:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
P.S.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctytho/Determinism.pdf
All quite interesting, in particular the distinction between ontology
and epistemology, something ET Jaynes emphasized.
I can recommend Greg Chaitin's take on all this although I do not
agree with his equating ontological with epistemological. But then
Greg is a mathematician, and we know they do not understand physics
the same as a physicist.
I remind you that before you can engage in meaningful discussions of
metaphysics, you must declare the Worldview you have adopted that
forms the axiomatic foundation for your rational system of argument.
The two most important Worldviews are Realism (Aristotle) and Idealism
(Plato). They are incompatible. For example, Realism demands
consistency whereas Idealism does not. Realism demands causality
whereas Idealism does not. Realism demands objective existence whereas
Idealism is purely subjective.
I would class my self a realist, although I find the definitions you
give above to be highly eccentric. For instance, idealists have little
choice but to rely on logical consitency, since they cannot rely on
empiricisim. Also, causality is connected to idealism via rationalism.
Apriori assuptions of causality have traditionally been the central, or
only, rationalist tenet.
Post by Anubis
If you do not have a clear understanding of the Worldview in advance
of a discussion, you and your correspondent will wander aimlessly.
If you say so.
Post by Anubis
Physics demands the Worldview of Realism. Causality of one of the
major tenets of Realism.
A lot hinges on what you mean by causality, and on whether you
are asserting it apriori or aposteriori.
Post by Anubis
There is no way the external world can behave
in an ordered manner without causality.
It can *display* order, through coincidence. Its order
cannot be *explained* without recourse to *some* kind of
causality.
Post by Anubis
Of course, the subjective
world based on the Worldview of Idealism can display order without
causality.
Exactly the same considerations apply. If there is a reason why
you will have some private, subjective sensation at time T,
it is a causal reason. Otherwise , order is displayed coincidentally
and inexplicably.
Post by Anubis
But that wor
Anubis
2005-08-16 19:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1Z
I would class my self a realist, although I find the definitions you
give above to be highly eccentric.
LOL. That's because you weren't taught the classics, the liberal arts.

The "definitions" above come straight out of Aristotle (Realism) and
Plato (Idealism).
Post by 1Z
For instance, idealists have little
choice but to rely on logical consitency, since they cannot rely on
empiricisim.
Kurt Godel would argue with that. So would Alan Turing. Also consult
Roger Penrose. There are all sorts of co-existing inconsistencies and
contradictions in mathematics.
Post by 1Z
Also, causality is connected to idealism via rationalism.
Apriori assuptions of causality have traditionally been the central, or
only, rationalist tenet.
That's why I list it as one of the three major axioms of Realism.
Post by 1Z
Post by Anubis
If you do not have a clear understanding of the Worldview in advance
of a discussion, you and your correspondent will wander aimlessly.
If you say so.
Don't you see that if two people adopt two completely different set of
axioms they will not be able to convince one another of the
propositions in their separate formal systems? I find that intuitively
obvious.
Post by 1Z
A lot hinges on what you mean by causality
Cause and effect. where cause is efficient cause (cf. Aristotle's
treatise on the various causes).
Post by 1Z
and on whether you
are asserting it apriori or aposteriori.
I do not understand what you mean.
Post by 1Z
Post by Anubis
There is no way the external world can behave
in an ordered manner without causality.
It can *display* order, through coincidence. Its order
cannot be *explained* without recourse to *some* kind of
causality.
That's the epistemological explanation. But what about the ontological
explanation.

The sequence 011010101110101001... is clearly not ordered. In terms
of Chaitin and Kolmogorov's complexity theory, you cannot find an
algorithm to reproduce that sequence that is logrithmically smaller
than the sequence itself. It is irreducible and therefore
algorithmically complex.

The sequence 1111111111111... is clearly ordered. In terms of
complexity theory I can find an algorithm that reproduces it which is
considerably smaller.

for(int i=0;i<N;i++) putc('1');

where N is the number of bits in the sequence (its length). For large
N that algorithm is log N small compared to the one that reproduces
the first sequence which is N large.

Therefore there is at least a mathematical criterion for order vs
chaos. That may be about as ontological as we can get.
Post by 1Z
Exactly the same considerations apply. If there is a reason why
you will have some private, subjective sensation at time T,
it is a causal reason. Otherwise , order is displayed coincidentally
and inexplicably.
But only because such display is subjective - in your mind. In the
objective world there must be strict causality.
--
Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

The ideological elites at the U.N. see the world as a collection of
helpless and victimized peoples beset by an ever-widening array of
"problems" ranging from civil wars to racial inequality that can be
solved only by an outside, all-knowing bureaucracy - the U.N. itself.
Their ultimate agenda is the disappearance of the sovereign nations
they claim to represent and the advent of a uniform global
government in which no one will be represented except the elites
themselves.
mimus
2005-08-16 19:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
I would class my self a realist, although I find the definitions you
give above to be highly eccentric.
LOL. That's because you weren't taught the classics, the liberal arts.
The "definitions" above come straight out of Aristotle (Realism) and
Plato (Idealism).
Anybody whose head is still stuck in Aristotle (who taught that women had
more teeth than men, which tells us quite a bit about his "Realism") and
Plato (whose _Republic_ was in spite of appearances apparently not a joke)
has a coupla thousand years of catching up to do.
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
1Z
2005-08-17 11:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
I would class my self a realist, although I find the definitions you
give above to be highly eccentric.
LOL. That's because you weren't taught the classics, the liberal arts.
The "definitions" above come straight out of Aristotle (Realism) and
Plato (Idealism).
Post by 1Z
For instance, idealists have little
choice but to rely on logical consitency, since they cannot rely on
empiricisim.
Kurt Godel would argue with that. So would Alan Turing. Also consult
Roger Penrose. There are all sorts of co-existing inconsistencies and
contradictions in mathematics.
So ? I said Idealists want consistency; I didn't say logicians and
mathematicians could supply it. What that adds up to is that Idealism
is in trouble. But I said I was a realist, not an idealist, didn't I?
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
Also, causality is connected to idealism via rationalism.
Apriori assuptions of causality have traditionally been the central, or
only, rationalist tenet.
That's why I list it as one of the three major axioms of Realism.
But rationalism tends towards idealism rather than realism. If the
world is not mental in nature, why should it be cognisable apriori ?
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
Post by Anubis
If you do not have a clear understanding of the Worldview in advance
of a discussion, you and your correspondent will wander aimlessly.
If you say so.
Don't you see that if two people adopt two completely different set of
axioms they will not be able to convince one another of the
propositions in their separate formal systems? I find that intuitively
obvious.
If they are arguing apriori. But why should they be ? Your prejudice
towards the apriori is what is being contended in *this* discussion.
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
A lot hinges on what you mean by causality
Cause and effect. where cause is efficient cause (cf. Aristotle's
treatise on the various causes).
That's still vague. See below for various meanings of "cause".
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
and on whether you
are asserting it apriori or aposteriori.
I do not understand what you mean.
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
Post by Anubis
There is no way the external world can behave
in an ordered manner without causality.
It can *display* order, through coincidence. Its order
cannot be *explained* without recourse to *some* kind of
causality.
That's the epistemological explanation. But what about the ontological
explanation.
The sequence 011010101110101001... is clearly not ordered.
There is no way of knowing that is is not ordered, in Chaitins' sense,
since the
space of all possible algorithms is not avaiable to us.
Post by Anubis
In terms
of Chaitin and Kolmogorov's complexity theory, you cannot find an
algorithm to reproduce that sequence that is logrithmically smaller
than the sequence itself.
They say that is what what complexity *means*. They don't claim that
any partiuclar writeable sequence is complex in that sense, for the
reason
I gave above. Chaitin's Omega is complex in that sense, but is
unwriteable.
Post by Anubis
It is irreducible and therefore
algorithmically complex.
The sequence 1111111111111... is clearly ordered. In terms of
complexity theory I can find an algorithm that reproduces it which is
considerably smaller.
for(int i=0;i<N;i++) putc('1');
where N is the number of bits in the sequence (its length). For large
N that algorithm is log N small compared to the one that reproduces
the first sequence which is N large.
Therefore there is at least a mathematical criterion for order vs
chaos. That may be about as ontological as we can get.
That is a very eccentric use of "ontological".
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
Exactly the same considerations apply. If there is a reason why
you will have some private, subjective sensation at time T,
it is a causal reason. Otherwise , order is displayed coincidentally
and inexplicably.
But only because such display is subjective - in your mind. In the
objective world there must be strict causality.
Why ? Because it displays apparent order ? But a random-number
generator,
if left to tun forever, will eventually produce every ordered sequence
(in the C/K
sense) you can think of (monkeys and typewriters). Yet there is no
algorithm behind it. The C/K defintion only requires that a sequence
*could* be produced by an algorithm, not that it actually was!
The existence of order *suggests* an algorithm (or, metaphysically
speaking, causal laws), but doesn't necessitate it -- least of
all in the local absence of order and predictability (quantum
phenomena).

____________________________________________________________________

Kant and Hume on causality.


Kant's dilemma is that he
wants to get rid of the old scholastic metaphysics with its absurd and
unproveable dogmas, but he also needs a new metaphysics or a
metaphysics-substitute in order
to support scientific and common-sense reasoning. The principle reason
he believes that
he needs a new metaphysics or a metaphysics-substitute, is that he
needs to support the
idea of causality, which is seemingly needed for Newton's new science,
and in particular
he needs to support it against the sceptical attack of Hume.
Hume's contention that causality cannot be affirmed by the senses
starts with the objection
that it is not a sense-datum like colour or size. It seems possible to
get round this
by saying, in modern language, that causality is a higher-order datum,
that we can confirm
casuality by noting repeated patterns of events. This will not do for
Hume and Kant,
however, because for them causality implies strict necessity, and even
repeated empirical
observation cannot deliver logical necessity. What is more, the place
one would normally
look to for logial necessity, abstract logical argumentation, cannot
deliver necessity in
the case of causality. 'Every event has a cause' is not analytically
and necessarily true
in the way that 'every child has a parent' is. Kant's way of getting
free from the two
horns of this dilemma is to introduce a third option, the famous
'synthetic a-priori',
which delivers necessity without being analytical, and relates to
experience without being derived
from it. The crux of the issue. leading to the need for the complex
edifice of Transcendental
Idealism and the Synthetic A Priori, is the *necessity* of causality,
which was at the time,
an invariable assumption, made by Kant, Hume Spinoza, and so on.


NECESSARY AND SUFFICIENT CAUSATION

Determinists often claim 'everything has a cause' as both
a self-evident principle, and as one which has significant
philosophical import. However, the truth of the latter depends,
as philosophical questions tend to, one what one means by
'cause'.
Sufficient cause: If A, then B. A's cannot occur without B's following
on. A's are sufficient to cause B's. But something else, A* could
also cause B.
Necessary Cause: If B, then A. If B has occured, A must have occured.
A is necessary for B.


CAUSATION AND EXPLANATION

What caused Smith's death ? According to the coroner, the arsenic he
ingested. According to the counsel for the prosecution, his wife.
The accounts do not contradict each other, they simply reflect
different areas of concern. What causes something is not simply given,
it depends on what we are interested in.



TRIGGER AND BACKGROUND CAUSES

We commonly say that a fire was caused by a dropped match, but that is
far from being the one and only cause involved; fires,for instance do
not start without oxygen. That sort of consideration is of little
interest for many purposes; what is of interest is what isunusual, what
is changed, not background conditions that never vary. However, this
rule often does not apply to historical or social situations. What is
of interest is not so much what triggered a riot, but what led up to
it. The assassin of Archduke Ferdinand does not bear the brunt of
responsibility for WWI.


CAUSALITY AND CORELATION

"Correlation is not causality" is mantra taught to all scientists,
sometimes to the point where they cease to believe in causality at all.
The problem is that if A is correlated with B it could be that A causes
B, B causes A, or both are caused by something else, C.
Often the gap is filled in by prejudice. According to the theory of
spontaneous generation, decay causes maggots to appear. To the moder
understanding, it is the action of organisms that causes decay.


STRICT AND PROBABLISTIC CAUSATION
In the present day we have good reason to think of causation as
probablistic, as influenceing
without determining completely, as in phrases like 'smoking causes
cancer',
which means 'smoking makes cancer more likely', not '100% of everybody
who smokes will get cancer'.
If causality really is probablistic, then it is quite prossible to
derive causal laws empirically
by noting that repeated correlations of events, that events of type B
tend to follow on events of type A,
what are called 'empirical laws' in science.

Adherents of the strict version of causality, who believe that for a
cause to be a cause it must
necessitate its effects, often say that in the case of probablistic
causality it is only lack
of fine-grained information about the details of a physical situation
that causes the appearance
of merely probalistic causation. This is not a claim about what
probablistic causation means, since probablistic causation
is equally well understood by people who don't believe in
hidden determining factors. It is not an empirical fact either,
since, by definition, hidden determining factors are not apparent.
It can hardly be claimed as something that can be argued for logically
either, since arguments for strict determinism need to refute
non-strict, probabilistic causation, and cannot do that
without appealing, in a vicious circle, to the very assumption
of underlying determinism in question.




NATURAL AND AGENTIVE CAUSATION.

Natural causation seeks to bring all events under a set of universal
laws.
Agentive causation appeals to the irreducible individuality of agents.

Natural causation works from the past to the future.
Agentive causation is puposive and works, concpetually at least towards
the future.

Natural causation is factual.
Agentive causation is evaluative.

Natural causation is external -- the cause of an event is always
outside it.
Agentive causation is internal -- agents are self-determining.
Anubis
2005-08-17 12:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1Z
But rationalism tends towards idealism rather than realism.
Rationalism?
Post by 1Z
If the world is not mental in nature, why should it be cognisable apriori ?
Apperception is the consequence of higher brain function. You do not
have to look in some spirit world to know its origin.
Post by 1Z
If they are arguing apriori. But why should they be ? Your prejudice
towards the apriori is what is being contended in *this* discussion.
I don't care to get into a Kantian debate.
Post by 1Z
That's still vague. See below for various meanings of "cause".
I am not interested in a Kantian debate, and I do not subscribe to the
epistemological ranting of the skeptics like Hume. To me all of it is
wordplay having no substance in Reality. It is a thinly disguised
attempt to get away from Scholastic Philosophy, which is absurd in my
estimation.

We had a similar unfortunate experience in physics when Bohr muddied
the waters of quantum mechanics with his Copenhagen Interpretation.
Talk about psychotic bullshit. Thank God it is no longer taken
seriously. There are some physicists who claim that it set quantum
mechanics back 60 years.

You are discussing your Kant/Hume with the wrong person.
Post by 1Z
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
and on whether you
are asserting it apriori or aposteriori.
I do not understand what you mean.
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/
I know what the terms mean, I just don't know what you meant.
Post by 1Z
Post by Anubis
The sequence 011010101110101001... is clearly not ordered.
There is no way of knowing that is is not ordered, in Chaitins' sense,
since the
space of all possible algorithms is not avaiable to us.
It is not ordered until you find an algorithm. The assumption is that
all sequences are complex until shown to be otherwise. This becomes
clear when you understand how Chaitin constructs Omega.
Post by 1Z
Post by Anubis
In terms
of Chaitin and Kolmogorov's complexity theory, you cannot find an
algorithm to reproduce that sequence that is logrithmically smaller
than the sequence itself.
They say that is what what complexity *means*. They don't claim that
any partiuclar writeable sequence is complex in that sense, for the
reason
I gave above. Chaitin's Omega is complex in that sense, but is
unwriteable.
Didn't you see the ellipsis in those sequences? Look closely.
Post by 1Z
Post by Anubis
Therefore there is at least a mathematical criterion for order vs
chaos. That may be about as ontological as we can get.
That is a very eccentric use of "ontological".
How would you use it?
Post by 1Z
Why ? Because it displays apparent order ? But a random-number
generator,
if left to tun forever, will eventually produce every ordered sequence
(in the C/K
sense) you can think of (monkeys and typewriters).
Chaitin relates the traditional meanings of randomness to his AIT in a
book. But he also admitted in a public forum that there are kinds of
randomness, eg crypto randomness, that his theory does not cover.
Post by 1Z
Yet there is no
algorithm behind it.
So what? The criterion of complexity does not consider how a specific
sequence is generated.
Post by 1Z
The C/K defintion only requires that a sequence
*could* be produced by an algorithm, not that it actually was!
That is correct, but not for the reason you want it to be.

Indeed the sequence 11111111... (<<==== ELLIPSIS ALERT!!!)
Post by 1Z
The existence of order *suggests* an algorithm (or, metaphysically
speaking, causal laws), but doesn't necessitate it -- least of
all in the local absence of order and predictability (quantum
phenomena).
Don't cite quantum mechanics when you do not understand it. The
unknowable aspects of certain quantum mechanical processes, such as
spontaneous emission, do not preclude causality. The Schrodinger
Equation is fully deterministic (causal) because it used Unitary
operators. Radioactive decay has an unknowable aspect that comes
directly from quantum mechanics - the unknowable time of a particular
fecay - which is due to the fact that second order perturbation theory
gives a Lorentzian lineshape for the energy spectrum, and its Fourier
Transform results in a first order Poisson distribution for time. It's
the fact that the probability per unit time for any decay is a
constant over any time interval that causes the unknowability. After
all, if any tick on a clock is the same as any other in terms of when
an atom will decay, you can't know the time when it will actually
happen. This is pure quantum mechanics in action and does not precluse
the fact that the mechanism for the decay of the radioactive atom is
100% deterministic (causal) in terms of the excited state to ground
state transition.
Post by 1Z
Kant and Hume on causality.
Kant's dilemma is that he
wants to get rid of the old scholastic metaphysics with its absurd and
unproveable dogmas,
Kant is barking up the wrong tree. Scholastic Philosophy is on very
solid ground if you accept the axioms of Realism. Philosophers of
Kant's era were trying desperately to drag metaphysics away from
Realism - from ontology - and place it in the subjective
epistemological realm where they could then play all sorts of
contradictory and meaningless word games. Kant and his followers are
just engaging in mental masturbation.
--
Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

The ideological elites at the U.N. see the world as a collection of
helpless and victimized peoples beset by an ever-widening array of
"problems" ranging from civil wars to racial inequality that can be
solved only by an outside, all-knowing bureaucracy - the U.N. itself.
Their ultimate agenda is the disappearance of the sovereign nations
they claim to represent and the advent of a uniform global
government in which no one will be represented except the elites
themselves.
1Z
2005-08-17 14:06:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
But rationalism tends towards idealism rather than realism.
Rationalism?
The belief that you can figure out the nature of the world apriori.
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
If the world is not mental in nature, why should it be cognisable apriori ?
Apperception is the consequence of higher brain function. You do not
have to look in some spirit world to know its origin.
I am not talking about empircal, aposteriori perception, I am
talking about rational, apriori cognition.
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
If they are arguing apriori. But why should they be ? Your prejudice
towards the apriori is what is being contended in *this* discussion.
I don't care to get into a Kantian debate.
This is not a Kantian debate.
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
That's still vague. See below for various meanings of "cause".
I am not interested in a Kantian debate, and I do not subscribe to the
epistemological ranting of the skeptics like Hume. To me all of it is
wordplay having no substance in Reality. It is a thinly disguised
attempt to get away from Scholastic Philosophy, which is absurd in my
estimation.
The philosophy, or the attempt to get away ?

Anyway, if you are founding your case on a bunch of personal opinions
and prejudices, it is not going to be a strong one.
Post by Anubis
We had a similar unfortunate experience in physics when Bohr muddied
the waters of quantum mechanics with his Copenhagen Interpretation.
Talk about psychotic bullshit. Thank God it is no longer taken
seriously. There are some physicists who claim that it set quantum
mechanics back 60 years.
You are discussing your Kant/Hume with the wrong person.
Post by 1Z
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
and on whether you
are asserting it apriori or aposteriori.
I do not understand what you mean.
http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/
I know what the terms mean, I just don't know what you meant.
I don't think you do understand what the terms mean.
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
Post by Anubis
The sequence 011010101110101001... is clearly not ordered.
There is no way of knowing that is is not ordered, in Chaitins' sense,
since the
space of all possible algorithms is not avaiable to us.
It is not ordered until you find an algorithm.
But it doesn't *become* ordered at that point.
Post by Anubis
The assumption is that
all sequences are complex until shown to be otherwise.
If it is , it shouldn't be.
Post by Anubis
This becomes
clear when you understand how Chaitin constructs Omega.
Post by 1Z
Post by Anubis
In terms
of Chaitin and Kolmogorov's complexity theory, you cannot find an
algorithm to reproduce that sequence that is logrithmically smaller
than the sequence itself.
They say that is what what complexity *means*. They don't claim that
any partiuclar writeable sequence is complex in that sense, for the
reason
I gave above. Chaitin's Omega is complex in that sense, but is
unwriteable.
Didn't you see the ellipsis in those sequences? Look closely.
If a sequence is generated by an algorithm, an elipsis has a meaning.
Otherwise , what is it ? If 011010101110101001... is supposed to be
an infinite sequence of random digits, you should have said so.
In that case it would ineed be unordered, although this is only
"clear" from the word "random" and no by inspection of the digits
themselves.
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
Post by Anubis
Therefore there is at least a mathematical criterion for order vs
chaos. That may be about as ontological as we can get.
That is a very eccentric use of "ontological".
How would you use it?
To refer to what really exists. Since the existence of the (putative)
objects
of mathematics is controversial, it is not very ontological to
mathematise something.
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
Why ? Because it displays apparent order ? But a random-number
generator,
if left to tun forever, will eventually produce every ordered sequence
(in the C/K
sense) you can think of (monkeys and typewriters).
Chaitin relates the traditional meanings of randomness to his AIT in a
book. But he also admitted in a public forum that there are kinds of
randomness, eg crypto randomness, that his theory does not cover.
Post by 1Z
Yet there is no
algorithm behind it.
So what? The criterion of complexity does not consider how a specific
sequence is generated.
The point is that there is a distinction between displaying ordered
(even accidentally) and being ordered -- placed into order -- by some
mechanism.

You cannot conclude that apparent order in the external world is always
the result of something, and in the subjective world it never is;
objectivty/subjectivity is not the right criterion.
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
The C/K defintion only requires that a sequence
*could* be produced by an algorithm, not that it actually was!
That is correct, but not for the reason you want it to be.
Indeed the sequence 11111111... (<<==== ELLIPSIS ALERT!!!)
*That* elipsis means something.
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
The existence of order *suggests* an algorithm (or, metaphysically
speaking, causal laws), but doesn't necessitate it -- least of
all in the local absence of order and predictability (quantum
phenomena).
Don't cite quantum mechanics when you do not understand it.
!!!
Post by Anubis
The
unknowable aspects of certain quantum mechanical processes, such as
spontaneous emission, do not preclude causality.
That would depend on what you mean by "causality".
Post by Anubis
The Schrodinger
Equation is fully deterministic (causal) because it used Unitary
operators.
The SE produces as its output something that is not observed
macroscopically.
You are inferring too easily from mathematical to physical determinism.
Post by Anubis
Radioactive decay has an unknowable aspect that comes
directly from quantum mechanics - the unknowable time of a particular
fecay - which is due to the fact that second order perturbation theory
gives a Lorentzian lineshape for the energy spectrum, and its Fourier
Transform results in a first order Poisson distribution for time. It's
the fact that the probability per unit time for any decay is a
constant over any time interval that causes the unknowability. After
all, if any tick on a clock is the same as any other in terms of when
an atom will decay, you can't know the time when it will actually
happen. This is pure quantum mechanics in action and does not precluse
the fact that the mechanism for the decay of the radioactive atom is
100% deterministic (causal) in terms of the excited state to ground
state transition.
That still depends on what you mean by "causal".
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
Kant and Hume on causality.
Kant's dilemma is that he
wants to get rid of the old scholastic metaphysics with its absurd and
unproveable dogmas,
Kant is barking up the wrong tree. Scholastic Philosophy is on very
solid ground if you accept the axioms of Realism.
ie, if you have the "right" prejudices.
Post by Anubis
Philosophers of
Kant's era were trying desperately to drag metaphysics away from
Realism - from ontology - and place it in the subjective
epistemological realm where they could then play all sorts of
contradictory and meaningless word games. Kant and his followers are
just engaging in mental masturbation.
The point of what I pasted was that there are many meanings to
"causality".
Leaving Kant vs Hume to one side, you have still not explained what
*you* mean.
Anubis
2005-08-18 11:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by 1Z
Anyway, if you are founding your case on a bunch of personal opinions
and prejudices, it is not going to be a strong one.
I suppose that means that if I adopt your scheme, then I will not be
prejudiced.
Post by 1Z
The point of what I pasted was that there are many meanings to
"causality".
Leaving Kant vs Hume to one side, you have still not explained what
*you* mean.
Aristotle explained causality. Of the various kinds he enumerates, I
am using "efficient cause", That the one that deals with making things
happen.
Publius
2005-08-17 18:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
This is pure quantum mechanics in action and does not precluse
the fact that the mechanism for the decay of the radioactive atom is
100% deterministic (causal) in terms of the excited state to ground
state transition.
You would reduce the confusion if you ceased equating determinism with
causality. A system may be causal but not deterministic.
Post by Anubis
Kant is barking up the wrong tree. Scholastic Philosophy is on very
solid ground if you accept the axioms of Realism. Philosophers of
Kant's era were trying desperately to drag metaphysics away from
Realism - from ontology - and place it in the subjective
epistemological realm where they could then play all sorts of
contradictory and meaningless word games. Kant and his followers are
just engaging in mental masturbation.
Realism is unscientific because it is inconsistent with observation. Kant
was trying to deal with that problem.
Anubis
2005-08-18 11:29:29 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:10:06 -0500, Publius
Post by Publius
You would reduce the confusion if you ceased equating determinism with
causality. A system may be causal but not deterministic.
I agree and tried to clear some of that up earlier.
Post by Publius
Realism is unscientific because it is inconsistent with observation. Kant
was trying to deal with that problem.
That's Kant's take on it.

The thing I do not care for about any of the so-called contemporary
philosophers from Kant on is that they have substituted epistemology
for ontology. They have delved into areas that are not scientific like
psychology. They have attempted to drag metaphysics into the
subjective realm, like mathematics.

There is an even deeper reason I do not care for any of it - in
denying Realism they have denied the basis of science.
1Z
2005-08-18 15:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
Anyway, if you are founding your case on a bunch of personal opinions
and prejudices, it is not going to be a strong one.
I suppose that means that if I adopt your scheme, then I will not be
prejudiced.
Have I been arguing from prejudice ?
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
The point of what I pasted was that there are many meanings to
"causality".
Leaving Kant vs Hume to one side, you have still not explained what
*you* mean.
Aristotle explained causality. Of the various kinds he enumerates, I
am using "efficient cause", That the one that deals with making things
happen.
But that subdivides into necessary, sufficient, probablistic, etc.

Whether the phrase "QM is causal but not deterministic" is sense
or nonsense depends very much on which meaning you have in mind.
Post by Anubis
The thing I do not care for about any of the so-called contemporary
philosophers
I think you meant "contemporary so-called philosophers".
Post by Anubis
from Kant on is that they have substituted epistemology
for ontology. They have delved into areas that are not scientific like
psychology.
Huh?!?!?!?

Psychology is a science !!!!!
Post by Anubis
They have attempted to drag metaphysics into the
subjective realm, like mathematics.
Maths isn't subjective! Everyone gets the same answers !
Post by Anubis
There is an even deeper reason I do not care for any of it - in
denying Realism they have denied the basis of science.
Thinking you need to get you epistemology straigh in the first place is
not
denying science !
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
This is pure quantum mechanics in action and does not precluse
the fact that the mechanism for the decay of the radioactive atom is
100% deterministic (causal) in terms of the excited state to ground
state transition.
You would reduce the confusion if you ceased equating determinism with
causality. A system may be causal but not deterministic.
Given some possible meanings of those words.
Post by Anubis
Post by 1Z
Kant is barking up the wrong tree. Scholastic Philosophy is on very
solid ground if you accept the axioms of Realism. Philosophers of
Kant's era were trying desperately to drag metaphysics away from
Realism - from ontology - and place it in the subjective
epistemological realm where they could then play all sorts of
contradictory and meaningless word games. Kant and his followers are
just engaging in mental masturbation.
Realism is unscientific because it is inconsistent with observation.
Huhh?????
Post by Anubis
Kant
was trying to deal with that problem.
Publius
2005-08-18 18:32:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by Publius
Realism is unscientific because it is inconsistent with observation.
Kant was trying to deal with that problem.
That's Kant's take on it.
The thing I do not care for about any of the so-called contemporary
philosophers from Kant on is that they have substituted epistemology
for ontology. They have delved into areas that are not scientific like
psychology. They have attempted to drag metaphysics into the
subjective realm, like mathematics.
They (Kant and his followers) have not "substituted" epistemology for
ontology. They have pointed out that there is a deep connection between
them. The two investigations must be conducted simultaneously, and in
parallel. We cannot say what is without considereing what and how we know,
and we cannot say what we know without some assumptions about what is.
Post by Anubis
There is an even deeper reason I do not care for any of it - in
denying Realism they have denied the basis of science.
It only denies science an inadequate basis, and seeks to replace it with
one more empirically defensible.

m***@xtra.co.nz
2005-08-14 11:58:19 UTC
Permalink
Ahem, I forgot Bob is a Jesuitical heathen theist
Now thats really really really funny when two mystics argue over their
own feelings about their own feelings, which in reality are nothing but
feelings about feelings.

I have a feeling that there is a god !

Really?

Yes!

Whats a god?

Oh its a feeling I have!

So can you define your god?

No, nobody can, its just a feeling I have.



Michael Gordge
Anubis
2005-08-14 15:09:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Ahem, I forgot Bob is a Jesuitical heathen theist
Now thats really really really funny when two mystics argue over their
own feelings about their own feelings, which in reality are nothing but
feelings about feelings.
Go back to shagging sheep.
BOB
2005-08-14 15:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Ahem, I forgot Bob is a Jesuitical heathen theist
Now thats really really really funny when two mystics argue over their
own feelings about their own feelings, which in reality are nothing but
feelings about feelings.
Go back to shagging sheep.
Churches already have the lock on that activity.
m***@xtra.co.nz
2005-08-14 20:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Ahem, I forgot Bob is a Jesuitical heathen theist
Now thats really really really funny when two mystics argue over their
own feelings about their own feelings, which in reality are nothing but
feelings about feelings.
Go back to shagging sheep.
I didn't realise ewe are an Australian mystic Anusbus. Leaving the
altar boys alone are ewe? ewe cheeky bastard.


Michael Gordge
Ford Prefect
2005-08-14 14:57:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@xtra.co.nz
Ahem, I forgot Bob is a Jesuitical heathen theist
Now thats really really really funny when two mystics argue over their
own feelings about their own feelings, which in reality are nothing but
feelings about feelings.
I have a feeling that there is a god !
Really?
Yes!
Whats a god?
Oh its a feeling I have!
So can you define your god?
No, nobody can, its just a feeling I have.
Michael Gordge
And the funniest thing is they think anyone else's feelings are
incorrect ;~)
Anubis
2005-08-14 15:29:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:57:11 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
And the funniest thing is they think anyone else's feelings are
incorrect ;~)
If that's the funniest thing you have ever encountered, you need to
experience more of what life has to offer.
Ford Prefect
2005-08-14 16:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:57:11 -0400, Ford Prefect
Post by Ford Prefect
And the funniest thing is they think anyone else's feelings are
incorrect ;~)
If that's the funniest thing you have ever encountered, you need to
experience more of what life has to offer.
I'm referring to the funniest thing about the faithful, not life in general.
abelard
2005-08-14 16:15:06 UTC
Permalink
It matters not whether there is or isn't a God, the fearful would
create one anyway.
Interesting. Why?
Out of fear of the unknown, it is the basis of all early legends. The
idea that there is no guiding force out their scares the hell out of
people who wish, hope and pray there is a reason for it all.
If there *is* a 'guiding force' out there, it seems to be a pretty
incompetent one...
why does an originating force require outside guidance...
a factory produces a car...it does not guide the path of the car
through its life....
the factory does not even preclude you using the car as
a door stop or an art installation....

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOB
2005-08-14 17:54:18 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:37:26 +0100, Paul Hyett
It matters not whether there is or isn't a God, the fearful would
create one anyway.
Interesting. Why?
Out of fear of the unknown, it is the basis of all early legends. The
idea that there is no guiding force out their scares the hell out of
people who wish, hope and pray there is a reason for it all.
If there *is* a 'guiding force' out there, it seems to be a pretty
incompetent one...
why does an originating force require outside guidance...
Because so many of the religious kooks claim it is so, over and over and
over ad nauseum?
a factory produces a car...it does not guide the path of the car
through its life....
the factory does not even preclude you using the car as
a door stop or an art installation....
regards...
So your "god" is like a car factory? If so, it sure has produced a fair
share of lemons.
abelard
2005-08-14 16:15:07 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:04:13 +0100, Paul Hyett
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:37:26 +0100, Paul Hyett
If there *is* a 'guiding force' out there, it seems to be a pretty
incompetent one...
Man is the one fucking things up.
But if God designed man, that doesn't say much for his creative
abilities...
interesting and strange view....
proposed assumption...'god' set up the chemistry set....
the universe then merely develops what it does...

why any need for 'god' to design man?

regards....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
2005-08-14 16:15:08 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 12:31:39 +0100, Peter Watson
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:37:26 +0100, Paul Hyett
If there *is* a 'guiding force' out there, it seems to be a pretty
incompetent one...
Man is the one fucking things up.
But if God designed man, that doesn't say much for his creative
abilities...
Man had free will
man wanted to substitute God's objective truth (definitions of good and
evil) and have autonomy from God.
The fall was substitution of objective truth for subjective (man's)
truth
the number of the beast 666 is the number of a man
man becomes god -
man becomes the definer of knowledge wisdom and understanding
all are warned against in the Bible -
1Co 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written,
He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1Ti 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane
a
20. a. science: Gr. knowledge
Pr 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own
understanding.
Man wanted free will and got it. We live in the result.
how did he get to do any 'wanting'?

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
2005-08-14 16:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:04:13 +0100, Paul Hyett
Man is the one fucking things up.
But if God designed man, that doesn't say much for his creative
abilities...
Man has free will.
to walk through a wall?

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
2005-08-14 16:15:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 09:06:35 +0100, Paul Hyett
Post by abelard
Man has free will.
Maybe *that* was the design flaw? :)
Free will comes from quantum mechanics which decribes unknowable
aspects of physical processes. That actually leads to a better
Universe.
"If you want to build a robust universe, one that will never go wrong,
then you don't want to build it like a clock, for the smallest bit of
grit will cause it to go awry. However, if things at the base are
utterly random, nothing can make them more disordered. Complete
randomness at the heart of things is the most stable situation
imaginable
then why is ordered reduced locally...?
thus increasing local 'instability?'

regards.
- a divinely clever way to build a universe."
-- Heinz Pagels
Free will also includes the choice to follow demagogues, though.
Would you rather be a drone?
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
2005-08-14 16:15:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:34:32 -0400, Ford Prefect
I think the big argument is over the biblical depiction of a God as
described by fundamentalists vs a force of creation or energy. An
interesting toss on this is what a poster brought up - examples of the
powers of prayer experiments that heal at a distance as proof of god's
power. I did some study on this effect some years ago, and what was
interesting is it could work both ways, good or evil. In one such
experiment people were told to pray for a set of Tomato plants to grow
healthy fruit and stems, the other set they were supposed to pray for
the death of the plants, wither the leaves and stunt the growth.
In both cases it worked, for both good & ill wishers.
Do you have a URL for that experiment.
sounds like regular bull droppings to me....
every generation of soft 'scientists' come up with this stuff.....
and many others follow...
only to be shown later as gulls...
www.abelard.org/galton/galton.htm

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
2005-08-14 16:15:06 UTC
Permalink
"Only morons believe in god!"
The fool has said there is no god.
It matters not whether there is or isn't a God, the fearful would
create one anyway.
Interesting. Why?
Out of fear of the unknown, it is the basis of all early legends. The
idea that there is no guiding force out their scares the hell out of
people who wish, hope and pray there is a reason for it all.
this is at least 2 assertions...
1)the 'god' is an emanation arising from fear....
2)the drive is to hope for 'a reason'....

as it is clear that one may define a personal reason....
how do you connect the wish for 'a reason' with the
allegedly fear driven motivation...

please clarify if you can...

regards.
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Prefect
2005-08-14 17:30:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
"Only morons believe in god!"
The fool has said there is no god.
It matters not whether there is or isn't a God, the fearful would
create one anyway.
Interesting. Why?
Out of fear of the unknown, it is the basis of all early legends. The
idea that there is no guiding force out their scares the hell out of
people who wish, hope and pray there is a reason for it all.
this is at least 2 assertions...
1)the 'god' is an emanation arising from fear....
2)the drive is to hope for 'a reason'....
as it is clear that one may define a personal reason....
how do you connect the wish for 'a reason' with the
allegedly fear driven motivation...
please clarify if you can...
regards.
I doubt I can make it any clearer than it already is. Most people fear
the unknown, give a name to the fear, a way to deal with it or describe
it and you have a answer to what formerly was unknown. Having a god as a
patsy for all the events was an easy answer for all that puzzled
primitive man. Using human logic, to protect one's self from negative
events all you had to do was not piss the god off.
abelard
2005-08-14 19:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by abelard
"Only morons believe in god!"
The fool has said there is no god.
It matters not whether there is or isn't a God, the fearful would
create one anyway.
Interesting. Why?
Out of fear of the unknown, it is the basis of all early legends. The
idea that there is no guiding force out their scares the hell out of
people who wish, hope and pray there is a reason for it all.
this is at least 2 assertions...
1)the 'god' is an emanation arising from fear....
2)the drive is to hope for 'a reason'....
as it is clear that one may define a personal reason....
how do you connect the wish for 'a reason' with the
allegedly fear driven motivation...
please clarify if you can...
I doubt I can make it any clearer than it already is. Most people fear
the unknown, give a name to the fear, a way to deal with it or describe
it and you have a answer to what formerly was unknown. Having a god as a
patsy for all the events was an easy answer for all that puzzled
primitive man. Using human logic, to protect one's self from negative
events all you had to do was not piss the god off.
you appear to have somewhat modified your ground...
i don't mind...your latter position, while more constricted,
appears unitary...and therefore less confusing to me

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
2005-08-14 16:15:07 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:37:26 +0100, Paul Hyett
If there *is* a 'guiding force' out there, it seems to be a pretty
incompetent one...
Man is the one fucking things up.
please expand...
if man is manufactured with potentials...and man expresses
those potentials..
where is the 'fuck up'?

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
2005-08-14 16:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Hmm, I use the two as synonymous, and consider both probabilistic and
chaotic systems deterministic, without regard to predictability, which
exists with regard to probabilistic systems (a probabilistic prediction is
still a prediction, and, say, electron energy decay in the atom can be
regarded as a forking in causation) but not with regard to chaotic systems
(in practice, due to the savage effects of error in measurement on
prediction of the behavior thereof), which are nonetheless perfectly
determined, with equations describing their behavior perfectly well
deriveable . . . .
does this translate into...
'one horse will win a horse race is a deterministic statement'?
if not...
how is your usage of 'deterministic' defined?

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mimus
2005-08-14 16:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Hmm, I use the two as synonymous, and consider both probabilistic and
chaotic systems deterministic, without regard to predictability, which
exists with regard to probabilistic systems (a probabilistic prediction is
still a prediction, and, say, electron energy decay in the atom can be
regarded as a forking in causation) but not with regard to chaotic systems
(in practice, due to the savage effects of error in measurement on
prediction of the behavior thereof), which are nonetheless perfectly
determined, with equations describing their behavior perfectly well
deriveable . . . .
does this translate into...
'one horse will win a horse race is a deterministic statement'?
No, and I don't even count that as a prediction, since to predict all
possible cases is not to predict at all (well, OK, all the horses could
trip over each other or come down with fulminating VEE at the gate or
something, so maybe it is one . . . ).

A better (and classic) non- prediction is, of course, "There will either be
a sea- battle tomorrow, or not" <snort>.

And then of course there's the classic scenario where groups of
"predicters" of human behavior like prophets and psychics and economists
all "predict" away, and as long as one of them gets it right (or close,
possibly by virtue of creative interpretation) they all take credit for it
for their school or "science" of "prediction", and quietly ignore all the
wrong "predictions".
Post by abelard
if not...
how is your usage of 'deterministic' defined?
*Again*, as a synonym for "causal", and one might throw "dochastic" in
there, too.
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
abelard
2005-08-14 17:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Post by abelard
Hmm, I use the two as synonymous, and consider both probabilistic and
chaotic systems deterministic, without regard to predictability, which
exists with regard to probabilistic systems (a probabilistic prediction is
still a prediction, and, say, electron energy decay in the atom can be
regarded as a forking in causation) but not with regard to chaotic systems
(in practice, due to the savage effects of error in measurement on
prediction of the behavior thereof), which are nonetheless perfectly
determined, with equations describing their behavior perfectly well
deriveable . . . .
does this translate into...
'one horse will win a horse race is a deterministic statement'?
No, and I don't even count that as a prediction, since to predict all
possible cases is not to predict at all (well, OK, all the horses could
trip over each other or come down with fulminating VEE at the gate or
something, so maybe it is one . . . ).
A better (and classic) non- prediction is, of course, "There will either be
a sea- battle tomorrow, or not" <snort>.
And then of course there's the classic scenario where groups of
"predicters" of human behavior like prophets and psychics and economists
all "predict" away, and as long as one of them gets it right (or close,
possibly by virtue of creative interpretation) they all take credit for it
for their school or "science" of "prediction", and quietly ignore all the
wrong "predictions".
Post by abelard
if not...
how is your usage of 'deterministic' defined?
*Again*, as a synonym for "causal",
but you are then apparently defining a probability as 'causal'....
i still don't understand *your* contention/meaning.....

let me refine my horse race user example to
'some horse will win the race'.....are you attempting to (will you) call
that a deterministic stt?
Post by mimus
and one might throw "dochastic" in
there, too.
that alleged word gets 7 hits on google...
so, if you intend to 'throw it in'....i suggest you start some defining...
preferably with adequate context....

regards....
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mimus
2005-08-14 17:38:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by mimus
Post by abelard
Hmm, I use the two as synonymous, and consider both probabilistic and
chaotic systems deterministic, without regard to predictability, which
exists with regard to probabilistic systems (a probabilistic prediction is
still a prediction, and, say, electron energy decay in the atom can be
regarded as a forking in causation) but not with regard to chaotic systems
(in practice, due to the savage effects of error in measurement on
prediction of the behavior thereof), which are nonetheless perfectly
determined, with equations describing their behavior perfectly well
deriveable . . . .
does this translate into...
'one horse will win a horse race is a deterministic statement'?
No, and I don't even count that as a prediction, since to predict all
possible cases is not to predict at all (well, OK, all the horses could
trip over each other or come down with fulminating VEE at the gate or
something, so maybe it is one . . . ).
A better (and classic) non- prediction is, of course, "There will either be
a sea- battle tomorrow, or not" <snort>.
And then of course there's the classic scenario where groups of
"predicters" of human behavior like prophets and psychics and economists
all "predict" away, and as long as one of them gets it right (or close,
possibly by virtue of creative interpretation) they all take credit for it
for their school or "science" of "prediction", and quietly ignore all the
wrong "predictions".
Post by abelard
if not...
how is your usage of 'deterministic' defined?
*Again*, as a synonym for "causal",
but you are then apparently defining a probability as 'causal'....
i still don't understand *your* contention/meaning.....
let me refine my horse race user example to
'some horse will win the race'.....are you attempting to (will you) call
that a deterministic stt?
Um. No. A horse race is complicated by the possession of the power of
choice by the riders and the horses . . . .

A simpler scenario that might help us both is this little classic: An
atomic electron absorbs a photon and is elevated or jumps to a higher-
energy excited state and configuration, and has a choice of two lower-
energy states and configurations that it can decay to, losing a photon
equal in energy to the difference between the excited and those lower-
energy states in the process.

The probability of the photon dropping to either of those states is fifty/
fifty, yet this is nonetheless causation at work, and can be regarded, or
at least *I* regard it, as a classic forking of causation, where the system
can go either way.

Thus, I consider such system to be both causal (if you don't like my usage
of "deterministic" here) *and* probabilistic.
Post by abelard
Post by mimus
and one might throw "dochastic" in
there, too.
that alleged word gets 7 hits on google...
so, if you intend to 'throw it in'....i suggest you start some defining...
preferably with adequate context....
I thought I just did.
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
mimus
2005-08-14 17:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Post by abelard
Post by mimus
Post by abelard
Hmm, I use the two as synonymous, and consider both probabilistic and
chaotic systems deterministic, without regard to predictability, which
exists with regard to probabilistic systems (a probabilistic prediction is
still a prediction, and, say, electron energy decay in the atom can be
regarded as a forking in causation) but not with regard to chaotic systems
(in practice, due to the savage effects of error in measurement on
prediction of the behavior thereof), which are nonetheless perfectly
determined, with equations describing their behavior perfectly well
deriveable . . . .
does this translate into...
'one horse will win a horse race is a deterministic statement'?
No, and I don't even count that as a prediction, since to predict all
possible cases is not to predict at all (well, OK, all the horses could
trip over each other or come down with fulminating VEE at the gate or
something, so maybe it is one . . . ).
A better (and classic) non- prediction is, of course, "There will either be
a sea- battle tomorrow, or not" <snort>.
And then of course there's the classic scenario where groups of
"predicters" of human behavior like prophets and psychics and economists
all "predict" away, and as long as one of them gets it right (or close,
possibly by virtue of creative interpretation) they all take credit for it
for their school or "science" of "prediction", and quietly ignore all the
wrong "predictions".
Post by abelard
if not...
how is your usage of 'deterministic' defined?
*Again*, as a synonym for "causal",
but you are then apparently defining a probability as 'causal'....
i still don't understand *your* contention/meaning.....
let me refine my horse race user example to
'some horse will win the race'.....are you attempting to (will you) call
that a deterministic stt?
Um. No. A horse race is complicated by the possession of the power of
choice by the riders and the horses . . . .
A simpler scenario that might help us both is this little classic: An
atomic electron absorbs a photon and is elevated or jumps to a higher-
energy excited state and configuration, and has a choice of two lower-
energy states and configurations that it can decay to, losing a photon
equal in energy to the difference between the excited and those lower-
energy states in the process.
I forgot to specify that these lower- energy states are equal in energy.
Post by mimus
The probability of the photon dropping to either of those states is fifty/
fifty, yet this is nonetheless causation at work, and can be regarded, or
at least *I* regard it, as a classic forking of causation, where the system
can go either way.
Thus, I consider such system to be both causal (if you don't like my usage
of "deterministic" here) *and* probabilistic.
Post by abelard
Post by mimus
and one might throw "dochastic" in
there, too.
that alleged word gets 7 hits on google...
so, if you intend to 'throw it in'....i suggest you start some defining...
preferably with adequate context....
I thought I just did.
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
abelard
2005-08-14 19:29:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Post by abelard
but you are then apparently defining a probability as 'causal'....
i still don't understand *your* contention/meaning.....
let me refine my horse race user example to
'some horse will win the race'.....are you attempting to (will you) call
that a deterministic stt?
Um. No. A horse race is complicated by the possession of the power of
choice by the riders and the horses . . . .
A simpler scenario that might help us both is this little classic: An
atomic electron absorbs a photon and is elevated or jumps to a higher-
energy excited state and configuration, and has a choice of two lower-
energy states and configurations that it can decay to, losing a photon
equal in energy to the difference between the excited and those lower-
energy states in the process.
do the electrons not have choice then? you are now using the language
of choice for the 'two' energy states....
Post by mimus
The probability of the photon dropping to either of those states is fifty/
fifty, yet this is nonetheless causation at work, and can be regarded, or
at least *I* regard it, as a classic forking of causation, where the system
can go either way.
how do the individuals decide which state to choose...
Post by mimus
Thus, I consider such system to be both causal (if you don't like my usage
of "deterministic" here) *and* probabilistic.
i don't mind which usages you use...i'm merely trying to follow how
you usages are used...

you may of course consider that the electron makes a choice...
but you don't know how it makes that choice...and therefore, from
your seat your express your lack of knowledge as a probability...
i suggest you may be getting problems because you are
1)not considering the pov(the electron or yours_
2)you are using the verb 'to be' (is)...as in
'is' probabalistic...or 'is' deterministic....

i assert that 'probabilistic' and choice' and 'deterministic' are merely
human ways of viewing a universe we understand very little....
they are not 'the way things are'...
Post by mimus
Post by abelard
Post by mimus
and one might throw "dochastic" in
there, too.
that alleged word gets 7 hits on google...
so, if you intend to 'throw it in'....i suggest you start some defining...
preferably with adequate context....
I thought I just did.
thought is bad for one's mental health....
meanwhile i see no defining...

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mimus
2005-08-14 22:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by mimus
Post by abelard
but you are then apparently defining a probability as 'causal'....
i still don't understand *your* contention/meaning.....
let me refine my horse race user example to
'some horse will win the race'.....are you attempting to (will you) call
that a deterministic stt?
Um. No. A horse race is complicated by the possession of the power of
choice by the riders and the horses . . . .
A simpler scenario that might help us both is this little classic: An
atomic electron absorbs a photon and is elevated or jumps to a higher-
energy excited state and configuration, and has a choice of two lower-
energy states and configurations that it can decay to, losing a photon
equal in energy to the difference between the excited and those lower-
energy states in the process.
do the electrons not have choice then?
Um, no, random event-- actually stochastic, since it's a random outcome
between limited outcomes.

AFAIK, electrons don't have nervous systems, or anything like one, either.
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
Anubis
2005-08-14 17:25:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
all the horses could
trip over each other or come down with fulminating VEE at the gate or
something, so maybe it is one . . . ).
Would that mess up pari-mutuel betting something wicked.
Post by mimus
Post by abelard
how is your usage of 'deterministic' defined?
*Again*, as a synonym for "causal"
The problem with that is then "nondeterministic" implies acausal. But
that is not the case.

The decay of a radioactive atom, which behaves as spontaneous emission
in quantum mechanics, is nondeterministic in the sense that the
probability per unit time for the decay is a constant for all time
intervals. Therefore one cannot determine the exact time when the atom
will decay. Yet the process of decay is entirely causal.

Similarly with a Turing Machine or other kind of computer - you cannot
know in general if any given program will halt or not but the behavior
of the machine is completely causal.

The Schrodinger Equation is intrinsically deterministic (and causal)
because it uses Unitary operators. But the result of the calculation
for spontaneous emission results in a flat time spectrum for the decay
process, which means that any time is the same as any other time. That
is, the process is both deterministic and nondeterministic, just like
the Turing Halting problem.

The solution to this confusion is to realize that there are two
metaphysical planes we are operating on - the ontological and the
epistemological. The ontological is what is really happening, whereas
the epistemological is what we are told is happening.

If we could see the space-time continuum, we would see that the decay
for a particular atom is a single point. That is, ontologically the
atom decays only once at a specific time. But the equations of quantum
mechanics tell us epistemologcally that our knowledge of that event is
spread out over all time with equal probability. It is intrinsically
uncomputable just like Turing's uncomputable number.

Here is a random number: 1011010001010100010011010

It cannot be calculated by any algorithm because it is uncomputable.
Imagine you have not seen this number, and I ask you to tell me what
it is. Ontologically it exists as a specific number, but
epistemologically it is intrinsically unknowable (until I show it to
you).
Post by mimus
and one might throw "dochastic" in there, too.
That's not a word, but then that's never stopped you before.

What would be the equivalent for a process where all outcomes possess
the same probability? That's what we mean by True Randomness, but what
would the word be using the root "chastic"? Equichastic?
--
Map of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html

The world is governed by very different personages from
what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.
-- Benjamin Disraeli
mimus
2005-08-14 17:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
The ontological is what is really happening, whereas
the epistemological is what we are told is happening.
Actually, "ontology" refers to the philosophy of "self"-- ITYM
"phenomenology".
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
Anubis
2005-08-15 01:53:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Actually, "ontology" refers to the philosophy of "self"-- ITYM
"phenomenology".
What dictionary are you using?

Ontology refers to the Being.
abelard
2005-08-14 16:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Of course, if you belong to the majority of Christian faiths who do not
interpret the bible literally, then evolution (and the big bang, etc)
all fit nicely into your world view, as the events in Genesis I fit
fairly well with the scientific view of our universes creation. The
timings off, but that's no big surprise considering that God was trying
to explain these complex events to sheepherders.
good to read your well organised and interesting post....

this may interest you....
http://www.abelard.org/news/politics0508.php#vatican_060805

request...
please give me a definition/description of what *you* mean
or understand by 'the theory of evolution'...

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Heit
2005-08-14 20:17:10 UTC
Permalink
abelard wrote:

Sorry about the late reply - haven't had much free time lately to keep
up on newsgroups...

<snip>
Post by abelard
good to read your well organised and interesting post....
Thanx
Post by abelard
this may interest you....
http://www.abelard.org/news/politics0508.php#vatican_060805
Old news. Personally speaking I find Cardinal Christoph Schönborn's
characterization of John Paul II's statement on evolution as being
"rather vague and unimportant" somewhat dumbfounding. Especially
considering that that JPII was just expanding on a view made nearly 50
years prior by one of his predecessors (Pius XII). Furthermore, this
"view" was released both times as an official statement of the Catholic
church, not as a personal view of the reigning pope...

And not very vague either:

"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical,
new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of
more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has
been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of
discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither
sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted
independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."

You can read his entire statement
here:http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm
Post by abelard
request...
please give me a definition/description of what *you* mean
or understand by 'the theory of evolution'...
I believe in the scientific definition of evolution, which it may come
to surprise you, is not the definition commonly used by most people, the
media, creationsists, etc...

Evolution is the change in a populations genetic information over
multiple generations. Nothing more.

Note that there are no qualifiers, such as "resulting in new species" or
"resulting in increasing complexity", or "resulting in changed
physiology". These types of definitions have been made up - mostly by
creationists - as ways of undermining the theory. However, from a
completely scientific point of view, neither physical changes,
speciation, nor increased "complexity" must occur for evolution to
occur. All that need occur is changes in the genetic makeup of a
population - be it changes in gene frequency, the introduction of new
genes, the loss of old genes, "higher-order" genetic changes which do
not alter genes themselves (i.e. inversions, translocations), or
outright speciation.

Consequently, to me, "evolutionary theory" is simply the study of HOW
these genetic changes occur. Evolution (i.e. that populations genetic
makeup changes over generations) is a fact - it has been observed too
many times to be nothing more then an artifact of measurement. The
mechanisms which give rise to these changes are also extremely well
known - natural selection, genetic drift and so forth have all been
observed, quantified, and in many cases replicated in-lab. Within
science the major remaining questions for evolutionary theory are how
these different mechanisms work together to forge the changes we
observe, as well as accounting for other (less understood) mechanisms
such as sexual selection.

Bryan
abelard
2005-08-14 20:33:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan Heit
Sorry about the late reply - haven't had much free time lately to keep
up on newsgroups...
<snip>
Post by abelard
good to read your well organised and interesting post....
Thanx
Post by abelard
this may interest you....
http://www.abelard.org/news/politics0508.php#vatican_060805
Old news. Personally speaking I find Cardinal Christoph Schönborn's
characterization of John Paul II's statement on evolution as being
"rather vague and unimportant" somewhat dumbfounding. Especially
considering that that JPII was just expanding on a view made nearly 50
years prior by one of his predecessors (Pius XII). Furthermore, this
"view" was released both times as an official statement of the Catholic
church, not as a personal view of the reigning pope...
"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical,
new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of
more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has
been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of
discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither
sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted
independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
You can read his entire statement
statement by jp...not pius of course (to remove ambiguity)
Post by Bryan Heit
here:http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/message.htm
i look forward to reading it....
my online time is intermittent as i am moving the yaks to
new pastures where the 'phones have been eaten by the local fauna...
so i am answering in a hurry...
i'll look again when i fly back to base where there are working lines!
Post by Bryan Heit
Post by abelard
request...
please give me a definition/description of what *you* mean
or understand by 'the theory of evolution'...
I believe in the scientific definition of evolution, which it may come
to surprise you,
not really...my fail safe expectation is human foolishness!
Post by Bryan Heit
is not the definition commonly used by most people, the
media, creationsists, etc...
Evolution is the change in a populations genetic information over
multiple generations. Nothing more.
look generally fine to me...
how does this relate to fitness constraints?
Post by Bryan Heit
Note that there are no qualifiers, such as "resulting in new species" or
"resulting in increasing complexity", or "resulting in changed
physiology". These types of definitions have been made up - mostly by
creationists - as ways of undermining the theory. However, from a
completely scientific point of view, neither physical changes,
speciation, nor increased "complexity" must occur for evolution to
occur. All that need occur is changes in the genetic makeup of a
population - be it changes in gene frequency, the introduction of new
genes, the loss of old genes, "higher-order" genetic changes which do
not alter genes themselves (i.e. inversions, translocations), or
outright speciation.
Consequently, to me, "evolutionary theory" is simply the study of HOW
these genetic changes occur. Evolution (i.e. that populations genetic
makeup changes over generations) is a fact - it has been observed too
many times to be nothing more then an artifact of measurement. The
mechanisms which give rise to these changes are also extremely well
known - natural selection, genetic drift and so forth have all been
observed, quantified, and in many cases replicated in-lab. Within
science the major remaining questions for evolutionary theory are how
these different mechanisms work together to forge the changes we
observe, as well as accounting for other (less understood) mechanisms
such as sexual selection.
ok....
the question above still stands...
are you treating selection as just one mechanism among several....
or as some 'special' external force?

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Heit
2005-08-15 14:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Bryan Heit
Evolution is the change in a populations genetic information over
multiple generations. Nothing more.
look generally fine to me...
how does this relate to fitness constraints?
There isn't necisarily a direct link between the definition of evolution
and fitness. Fitness is simply an attempt to mathematically quantify
the effects of various selective forces on a particular genotype. This
goes into the mechanisms which drive evolution, but has nothing to do
with what evolution "is".
Post by abelard
Post by Bryan Heit
Consequently, to me, "evolutionary theory" is simply the study of HOW
these genetic changes occur. Evolution (i.e. that populations genetic
makeup changes over generations) is a fact - it has been observed too
many times to be nothing more then an artifact of measurement. The
mechanisms which give rise to these changes are also extremely well
known - natural selection, genetic drift and so forth have all been
observed, quantified, and in many cases replicated in-lab. Within
science the major remaining questions for evolutionary theory are how
these different mechanisms work together to forge the changes we
observe, as well as accounting for other (less understood) mechanisms
such as sexual selection.
ok....
the question above still stands...
are you treating selection as just one mechanism among several....
or as some 'special' external force?
By definition, selection is the name given to the force which results in
the changes in gene frequencies. However, there is more then one type
of selection - most people are familiar with natural selection, which is
the name given to the effects of the environment on genotypes. However,
other forms of selection also exist; for example there is sexual
selection. This is what gave lions manes, peacocks tails, and some
would argue, humans different skin colours.

Of course there are some non-selection mechanisms which also come into
play (i.e. drift). I don't think that any of them (selection, or
non-selection) would qualify as "special" forces; rather they are work
together to drive evolution. Yes, there are some cases in which one
force or another can dominate, but overall they all play very important
roles in evolution.

Bryan
abelard
2005-08-15 14:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan Heit
Post by abelard
Post by Bryan Heit
Evolution is the change in a populations genetic information over
multiple generations. Nothing more.
look generally fine to me...
how does this relate to fitness constraints?
There isn't necisarily a direct link between the definition of evolution
and fitness. Fitness is simply an attempt to mathematically quantify
the effects of various selective forces on a particular genotype. This
goes into the mechanisms which drive evolution, but has nothing to do
with what evolution "is".
Post by abelard
Post by Bryan Heit
Consequently, to me, "evolutionary theory" is simply the study of HOW
these genetic changes occur. Evolution (i.e. that populations genetic
makeup changes over generations) is a fact - it has been observed too
many times to be nothing more then an artifact of measurement. The
mechanisms which give rise to these changes are also extremely well
known - natural selection, genetic drift and so forth have all been
observed, quantified, and in many cases replicated in-lab. Within
science the major remaining questions for evolutionary theory are how
these different mechanisms work together to forge the changes we
observe, as well as accounting for other (less understood) mechanisms
such as sexual selection.
ok....
the question above still stands...
are you treating selection as just one mechanism among several....
or as some 'special' external force?
By definition, selection is the name given to the force which results in
the changes in gene frequencies. However, there is more then one type
of selection - most people are familiar with natural selection, which is
the name given to the effects of the environment on genotypes. However,
other forms of selection also exist; for example there is sexual
selection. This is what gave lions manes, peacocks tails, and some
would argue, humans different skin colours.
Of course there are some non-selection mechanisms which also come into
play (i.e. drift). I don't think that any of them (selection, or
non-selection) would qualify as "special" forces; rather they are work
together to drive evolution. Yes, there are some cases in which one
force or another can dominate, but overall they all play very important
roles in evolution.
no problems with the above....thanx for your efforts

your link is most interesting to me...but it is going to take some
work following up....
reading at least three encyclicals.....
that will take time to fit into my schedule....

which newsgroup are you posting from?
i am using upm as my home base....

i hope i see more of your output....

regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Heit
2005-08-15 15:09:28 UTC
Permalink
abelard wrote:
<snip>
Post by abelard
no problems with the above....thanx for your efforts
No problem; good to know some people actually read these things...
Post by abelard
which newsgroup are you posting from?
can.politics, unfortunately I only get access to a lot of these groups
when others cross-post...

Bryan
mimus
2005-08-15 15:35:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan Heit
<snip>
Post by abelard
no problems with the above....thanx for your efforts
No problem; good to know some people actually read these things...
Post by abelard
which newsgroup are you posting from?
can.politics, unfortunately I only get access to a lot of these groups
when others cross-post...
Jeez, guy, subscribe to a real server.
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
Anubis
2005-08-15 16:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Post by Bryan Heit
can.politics, unfortunately I only get access to a lot of these groups
when others cross-post...
Jeez, guy, subscribe to a real server.
He said he is in Canada.
mimus
2005-08-15 17:03:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anubis
Post by mimus
Post by Bryan Heit
can.politics, unfortunately I only get access to a lot of these groups
when others cross-post...
Jeez, guy, subscribe to a real server.
He said he is in Canada.
You can subscribe to any NNTP server anywhere on Earth, eh?

For example, I used individual.net (Berlin, Germany) for awhile, even
though I'm in the Ohio River Valley.

And I use open or free servers 'round the world (usually read- only) to
check on post propagation whenever such a check seems needed (see Newzbot
or other listing service).

The wonder and power of the Internet!
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
Bryan Heit
2005-08-15 17:18:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Post by Bryan Heit
can.politics, unfortunately I only get access to a lot of these groups
when others cross-post...
Jeez, guy, subscribe to a real server.
What's wrong with the one I got - I don't really worry much about
seeking out Australian or New Zealand, or for that matter US specific
groups. I have access to all major groups, I only lack the
region-specific ones, aside from the Canada-specific ones...

Bryan
mimus
2005-08-15 17:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bryan Heit
Post by mimus
Post by Bryan Heit
can.politics, unfortunately I only get access to a lot of these groups
when others cross-post...
Jeez, guy, subscribe to a real server.
What's wrong with the one I got - I don't really worry much about
seeking out Australian or New Zealand, or for that matter US specific
groups. I have access to all major groups, I only lack the
region-specific ones, aside from the Canada-specific ones...
Oh, I see. Sorry. VWD.

(Although you miss a lot of good venomous diatribes by not getting the us.*
hierarchy . . . .)
--
American democracy consists of gerrymandering away of opposition
strongholds and representatives; discarding of opposition voter
registration forms; falsely striking opposition voters from voter lists;
provision of too few voting machines to opposition strongholds;
provision of the oldest voting machines to opposition strongholds;
record- free electronic vote deviations from exit polls disfavoring
only opposition candidates, produced by voting machines
produced by companies that are owned and directed by partisans
of the party in power; "fixing" of exit polls after the fact to
coincide with such deviations; and bribes in the form of campaign
donations.
Bryan Heit
2005-08-15 18:58:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Oh, I see. Sorry. VWD.
No problem.
Post by mimus
(Although you miss a lot of good venomous diatribes by not getting the us.*
hierarchy . . . .)
A lot of that does get up here - either cross posted, or forwarded by
others...

Bryan
abelard
2005-08-14 16:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Oh? How does belief in evolution prove disbelief in morality?
obviously it does not....
however, some may well argue that
'since we are all animals' evolved from whatever...
there is no 'morality'...or even there is no need for 'morality'

how would you approach such 'arguments'?

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mimus
2005-08-14 17:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Oh? How does belief in evolution prove disbelief in morality?
obviously it does not....
however, some may well argue that
'since we are all animals' evolved from whatever...
there is no 'morality'...or even there is no need for 'morality'
how would you approach such 'arguments'?
regards...
Morality starts when choice starts.

In other words, it's a matter of evolutionary and developmental neurology
as to when it began and begins.
--
Io non giudico né giudicheròmai essere difetto
difendere alcuna opinione con le ragioni,
sanza volervi usare o l'autorità o la forza.

< Machiavelli
Ford Prefect
2005-08-14 18:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Post by abelard
Oh? How does belief in evolution prove disbelief in morality?
obviously it does not....
however, some may well argue that
'since we are all animals' evolved from whatever...
there is no 'morality'...or even there is no need for 'morality'
how would you approach such 'arguments'?
regards...
Morality starts when choice starts.
In other words, it's a matter of evolutionary and developmental neurology
as to when it began and begins.
Very good! I've always thought Morality is an off shoot of social mores
that allowed human communities to thrive. Those that went against the
wishes of the community soon perished and did not make any further
contributions to the gene pool ;~)
There have been recent studies of a baboon troop that lost all of its
dominate males to a food poisioning, the remaining females left on their
own fell into a very matriarchal society for an extended period. New
males were accepted, but were driven away by the entire group the moment
they exhibited any violent treatment toward other members of the group.
abelard
2005-08-14 19:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by mimus
Post by abelard
Oh? How does belief in evolution prove disbelief in morality?
obviously it does not....
however, some may well argue that
'since we are all animals' evolved from whatever...
there is no 'morality'...or even there is no need for 'morality'
how would you approach such 'arguments'?
Morality starts when choice starts.
In other words, it's a matter of evolutionary and developmental neurology
as to when it began and begins.
i've no serious problem with that approach...
but why not cheat as an individual....once an evolutional
theory is accepted for the development of 'morality'....why
not just optimise selfishness?

regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
2005-08-14 16:30:07 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 23:41:56 +0100, Peter Watson
Evolution
must be accepted with faith by its believers, many
of whom deny the existence, or at least the power,
of the Creator.
So define the creator, rationally. What did the creator use to begin
the creation from nothing?
The Creator did not create from nothing. He created from information
which He fused into matter and form. Creation ex nihilo is nonsense.
IE Who or what created the creator?
Nothing and no one. He just always was. Before earth there was no time
and after death there will be no time.
the essential meaning of 'time' is change....
are you defining a silent unchanging matter world?
a ded universe?

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
2005-08-14 16:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Then you must be blind, the Catholic church is full of "Graven images",
including the cross.
which the adherents of western christianism are constantly
enjoined not to worship
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Prefect
2005-08-14 17:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
Then you must be blind, the Catholic church is full of "Graven images",
including the cross.
which the adherents of western christianism are constantly
enjoined not to worship
But they continue to do so.
abelard
2005-08-14 19:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by abelard
Then you must be blind, the Catholic church is full of "Graven images",
including the cross.
which the adherents of western christianism are constantly
enjoined not to worship
But they continue to do so.
how have you become privy to their mental states?

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
2005-08-14 16:45:21 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:09:04 +0100, Peter Watson
Did Jesus exist?
If so then was he
a - mad
b -a liar
c - who he claimed he was
what on earth is wrong with a highly intelligent thinker
of an earlier less knowledgeable era?

regards
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Prefect
2005-08-14 17:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:09:04 +0100, Peter Watson
Did Jesus exist?
If so then was he
a - mad
b -a liar
c - who he claimed he was
what on earth is wrong with a highly intelligent thinker
of an earlier less knowledgeable era?
regards
Which brings up an interesting thought, imagine what it must have been
like for any of the great thinkers of history dealing with the public at
the time ;~)
abelard
2005-08-14 19:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by abelard
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 18:09:04 +0100, Peter Watson
Did Jesus exist?
If so then was he
a - mad
b -a liar
c - who he claimed he was
what on earth is wrong with a highly intelligent thinker
of an earlier less knowledgeable era?
Which brings up an interesting thought, imagine what it must have been
like for any of the great thinkers of history dealing with the public at
the time ;~)
i notice bush constantly making rhetorical concessions to sheep....
they have votes....
it is a fine distinction that he may believe it...or be an adequate actor

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anubis
2005-08-15 02:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
i notice bush constantly making rhetorical concessions to sheep....
HUH?
abelard
2005-08-14 16:47:03 UTC
Permalink
No, Anglican. The bible is a creation of the early Catholic church, and
they worship "Graven Images", including the cross.
then why is this (or a variation of it) pounded into the heads of
young children raised in the christianist cults?

http://www.10-commandments.org/
"ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that
is in the water under the earth."

regards.
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Prefect
2005-08-14 17:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by abelard
No, Anglican. The bible is a creation of the early Catholic church, and
they worship "Graven Images", including the cross.
then why is this (or a variation of it) pounded into the heads of
young children raised in the christianist cults?
http://www.10-commandments.org/
"ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that
is in the water under the earth."
regards.
All the while they are surrounded by stained glass windows depicting
saints, crosses on every wall and often a huge crucifix or cross over
the alter. Religion is based on imagery, a left over from when most
people could not read latin ( or any language for that matter).
abelard
2005-08-14 19:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ford Prefect
Post by abelard
No, Anglican. The bible is a creation of the early Catholic church, and
they worship "Graven Images", including the cross.
then why is this (or a variation of it) pounded into the heads of
young children raised in the christianist cults?
http://www.10-commandments.org/
"ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that
is in the water under the earth."
All the while they are surrounded by stained glass windows depicting
saints, crosses on every wall and often a huge crucifix or cross over
the alter. Religion is based on imagery, a left over from when most
people could not read latin ( or any language for that matter).
fine....but worshiping the 'reading' materials seems not very relevant
to the stories depicted in the glass and stone books....

regards...
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc 1,495,400 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...