RE: Indoctrination (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 11:04:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Planck makes a huge leap from the quantum structure of the atom to his assumption of the nature of the forces of attraction.

But good stuff on Wilczek and Stapp . . . worth a hard look.

Maybe a huge leap, maybe not. Consider what Stapp said: "Everything we know about Nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of Nature lies outside space-time...

The physical world is constrained by space-time. The only alternative to Planck's speculation is to propose the existence of other space-times. And, of course, people have. But, there are problems. Where would they be? They can't be anywhere, because to be somewhere only has meaning within space-time. And when would they exist? They can't exist now, or in the past or in the future, because those terms, too, only have meaning within space-time.

But I don't want to go among mad people. ~Alice

K.



ToyOfRhamnusia -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 11:40:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

When my daughter was very young, she had about 15 nuclear devices (pacifiers) I would set her in her highchair in the morning, and pick one and put it on her tray (different coloars every one)..  She would sail that bitch across the room...put another one on her tray and I WOLD SAY....wrong kind?  and we would repeat that until she got the one she wanted, and it was not always the same one, depended on the mood.

When she started trying out the language end of it, she would heft them hence, and yell very loudly at me, KIND!!!!!! and I did not need to ask the question anymore, and we would play that out, until she could describe colors.

I got the gimmick, she got the gimmick, we got the gimmick, long before language. 

You can teach a dog to do this too. (Or I can teach you how to do that...)

It is fairly easy, as it involves an object all parties can observe and touch.

There is HUGE leap from this to being able to communicate an abstract issue that is NOT tangible and NOT visible. How can you even know that it is the same both parties have in mind?



ToyOfRhamnusia -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 11:41:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

Alright, in the interest of defining "word", here's an example:

«At the singularity¹, there was Logos, the Divine Will, and God was this Logos, and vice versa.»

Not really "word" in the usual sense; I invite you to look it up.

IWYW,
— Aswad.

¹ The "summit", the point; in this case the point all world lines proceed from.


It really does not matter - the fundamental meaning remains the same: that "God" is a function of the human mind.

And it also does not matter because religious people, in general, do NOT make your assertion, but take to mean what they think it means, in simple English. And that again proves that THEY see language as a prerequisite for the existence of "God" - which turns all logic about it into an absurdity. And we do not need more than that to accept that the concept of "God" (or any deity, for that matter) is a product of human imagination. At least in accordance with human imagination.



ToyOfRhamnusia -> RE: Indoctrination (11/17/2012 11:45:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Planck makes a huge leap from the quantum structure of the atom to his assumption of the nature of the forces of attraction.

But good stuff on Wilczek and Stapp . . . worth a hard look.

Maybe a huge leap, maybe not. Consider what Stapp said: "Everything we know about Nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of Nature lies outside space-time...

The physical world is constrained by space-time. The only alternative to Planck's speculation is to propose the existence of other space-times. And, of course, people have. But, there are problems. Where would they be? They can't be anywhere in terms of our space-time. And when would they exist? They can't exist now, or in the past or the future, because those only have meaning within our space-time.

But I don't want to go among mad people. ~Alice

K.


The speculation is futile, as we cannot make any observations about it, so it is beyond what we can determine with science. But it certainly leaves the possibility open for the existence of a deity of some sorts OUTSIDE our abilities to observe in the time/space realm.



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/18/2012 8:13:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Well, no. Actually, it has a very specific meaning. But since this has become a subject of discussion, I'll elaborate.


This sentence, by contrast, has a single meaning. One of those meanings is false. Another is very specific. (Not a grammo. Sic.)

I hope that clarified.

Thanks for the elaboration, though.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/18/2012 8:15:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia

I don't understand what you mean [...]


Such was my intent. My apologies. A weak moment.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/18/2012 8:31:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia

It really does not matter - the fundamental meaning remains the same: that "God" is a function of the human mind.


Excuse me? How does referencing the First Cause translate into implying that the First Cause is a function of a later effect?

quote:

And it also does not matter because religious people, in general, do NOT make your assertion, but take to mean what they think it means, in simple English.


That the majority of people are poorly informed about the matters they concern themselves with doesn't justify dismissing those matters, only the condition of being uninformed, which would appear to be a condition you partake of quite happily (in which you're not alone). If you've a gripe with those people, harp on those people. If you've a gripe with the subject, leave those people out of it.

If I refute a New Age claim about quantum mysticism, I have not refuted Quantum Mechanics, only demonstrated the New Age folks' ignorance of QM.

quote:

And that again proves that THEY see language as a prerequisite for the existence of "God" - which turns all logic about it into an absurdity.


I'm not quite ready to accept you as an authority on absurd "logic" yet, but keep going.

quote:

And we do not need more than that to accept that the concept of "God" (or any deity, for that matter) is a product of human imagination. At least in accordance with human imagination.


How good of you to include the last sentence. You'll note, of course, that physics are also in accordance with human imagination in the same, limited way; the difference being that we can make some testable predictions about physics at the moment, and that those have fashioned us with a measure of confidence in the current usefulness of our models. Physics is a fiction that deals with what appears to be a truth, which is part of why I like it.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/18/2012 8:41:37 AM)

quote:

The physical world is constrained by space-time. The only alternative to Planck's speculation is to propose the existence of other space-times. And, of course, people have. But, there are problems. Where would they be? They can't be anywhere, because to be somewhere only has meaning within space-time. And when would they exist? They can't exist now, or in the past or in the future, because those terms, too, only have meaning within space-time.

Space-time is expanding at an accelerating pace, we are told.
Where is it going if not outside space-time?



vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/18/2012 8:44:16 AM)

quote:

If I refute a New Age claim about quantum mysticism, I have not refuted Quantum Mechanics,

Here is where I have difficulty with the leap from Quantum Mechanics to Universal Consciousness. But, I shall explore it while away on holiday this week.



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/18/2012 9:23:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Space-time is expanding at an accelerating pace, we are told.
Where is it going if not outside space-time?


Umm... it's not going anywhere... it's expanding... becoming more space.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/18/2012 12:32:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Space-time is expanding at an accelerating pace, we are told.
Where is it going if not outside space-time?


Umm... it's not going anywhere... it's expanding... becoming more space.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


Yeh. I always have trouble wrapping my head around that. It seems counterintuitive. If a gas is expanding it is expanding into space. Its molecules are seperating. But if space is expanding it is becoming more space. Yet, the density of dark energy remains constant throughout?



GotSteel -> RE: Indoctrination (11/18/2012 12:50:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
But not all who take a different stance than you on an issue are religious.


In other breaking news 2+2=4 [8|]




vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/18/2012 12:55:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Planck makes a huge leap from the quantum structure of the atom to his assumption of the nature of the forces of attraction.

But good stuff on Wilczek and Stapp . . . worth a hard look.

Maybe a huge leap, maybe not. Consider what Stapp said: "Everything we know about Nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of Nature lies outside space-time...

The physical world is constrained by space-time. The only alternative to Planck's speculation is to propose the existence of other space-times. And, of course, people have. But, there are problems. Where would they be? They can't be anywhere, because to be somewhere only has meaning within space-time. And when would they exist? They can't exist now, or in the past or in the future, because those terms, too, only have meaning within space-time.

But I don't want to go among mad people. ~Alice

K.


Kirata;
I found Wilczek's discussion of matter as enegy fields and particles as manifestations of different energy frequencies pretty satisfying. More so than the notion that there are elemental, indivisible particles. However, as Wilczek pointed out in answering a question he would not draw any metaphysical or theological inferences from that model. So, anything else seems metaphysical speculation. You are apparently comfortable with that; I am not. I think Toy of Rhamnusia is pretty much spot on in #304.




Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/18/2012 1:03:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Yeh. I always have trouble wrapping my head around that. It seems counterintuitive. If a gas is expanding it is expanding into space. Its molecules are seperating. But if space is expanding it is becoming more space. Yet, the density of dark energy remains constant throughout?


As an aid to understanding, please do the following exercise:

1. Buy a balloon, a pencil and (optionally) a 30x loupe.
2. Write my name on the balloon with the pencil.
3. Weigh the balloon as it currently is.
4. Inflate the balloon.
5. Marvel at the inflation.
6. Tie off the balloon.
7. Inspect my inflated name with the loupe (optional).
8. Weigh the inflated balloon.
9. Extrapolate onto the universe.

It should get you significantly closer to understanding, especially if you do that loupe thing and swap the pencil for charcoal.

Now consider that gravity pulls things together.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



mnottertail -> RE: Indoctrination (11/18/2012 1:06:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Space-time is expanding at an accelerating pace, we are told.
Where is it going if not outside space-time?


Umm... it's not going anywhere... it's expanding... becoming more space.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



It is going into the void, in which there is no space time, but both are created with the expansion and at that point (sorta) became real.

Hey, your year is 365 1/4 day..... a light year is what?

You ain't even a woodtick on the flea of a mosquito of a light years ass.........

What does that mean?  That entropy is a construct of humans, that's for sure.

Thats sorta a FR gusy.  But while we exist, we should get all the pussy we can, meaningless as it is...............you can quote me.  



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/18/2012 1:08:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I think Toy of Rhamnusia is pretty much spot on in #304.


The notion that speculation is futile is possibly the most toxic idea ever.

People speculating on things they couldn't test is what got us to the point where we could test it, for one thing.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/18/2012 1:26:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

However, as Wilczek pointed out in answering a question he would not draw any metaphysical or theological inferences from that model. So, anything else seems metaphysical speculation. You are apparently comfortable with that; I am not.

I have simply noted that a deep understanding of the nature of physical reality, which our physics has only just confirmed in the 21st century, was known to peoples much more ancient than ourselves, and what I am comfortable with is the thought that it may further our understanding to give serious consideration to what else they had to say.

I'm glad you enjoyed the video.

K.



mnottertail -> RE: Indoctrination (11/18/2012 1:32:09 PM)

K, this one's for Gavin;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9PVucS9aw

but it is a recurring theme:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2tmJPVn6VY



vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/18/2012 2:50:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

I think Toy of Rhamnusia is pretty much spot on in #304.


The notion that speculation is futile is possibly the most toxic idea ever.

People speculating on things they couldn't test is what got us to the point where we could test it, for one thing.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


Good point.[:)]



Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (11/18/2012 3:49:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Good point.[:)]


Thank you.

The balloon exercise was, by the way, a serious suggestion, meant to be helpful, not an attempt at being condescending or anything like that. I've found that demonstrating things physically to people can be a great aid in conveying a better understanding of things that aren't intuitive to them.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875