Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 14
Atheistic fundamentalism
Topic Started: Dec 22 2007, 09:02 AM (4,625 Views)
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Frank - "reality ... is ... subjective"

If this were true, then our words would not have a common meaning (your words referring to your "reality" and my words to mine).

Apart from the epistemic incoherence of such a viewpoint, I don't really care about it in a larger sense. I only care if people then claim that such a subjective religious viewpoint is a reason for passing public laws restricting the freedom of others, as often happens here in the states with the religious right.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
IT: I understand why you have no reply to the lucid dreaming example. It refutes your position. You either have to accept the yoga world view on the "evidence" of lucid dreaming, or discount personal "visions" and "experience" and the like as evidence for your supernatural views to be consistent. Tough dilemma for you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
ivorythumper
Dec 23 2007, 10:11 PM
Moonbat
Dec 23 2007, 02:09 PM
Quote:
 

That is not a definition of time, that is an application of time.

What is time?


Well it seems like a definition to me - it species what time is in terms of it's relationship with space.

Time is a dimension, like the spatial dimensions in which one find elements of matter (though matter is ordered in time in a different way than it is ordered in space).

You are not defining time, you are only comparing it to other dimensions.

Space is given to be three dimensional. Each dimension (X, Y, Z or height, width, length or what ever you want to name them) denotes a comparison. Height is the relative comparison between two points on the Z plane, etc. Volume is is amount of space contained within the relative changes in the X, Y and Z planes (or something to that effect).

If you are going to define time in relation to space, then it needs to be something like the measure of change in moving from one point to another in the X,Y and Z planes.

Now I am sure you will come up with some theoretical physicist who shows this is completely wrong, and no doubt you will unleash a torrent of scientific terminology to support that position. So I'll try to make sense of whatever you respond with. :wink:

Man i had such a good post and then i hit freaking backm stupid mouse buttons! I will try again tomorrow.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Dec 23 2007, 08:09 PM
ivorythumper
Dec 23 2007, 10:11 PM
Moonbat
Dec 23 2007, 02:09 PM
Quote:
 

That is not a definition of time, that is an application of time.

What is time?


Well it seems like a definition to me - it species what time is in terms of it's relationship with space.

Time is a dimension, like the spatial dimensions in which one find elements of matter (though matter is ordered in time in a different way than it is ordered in space).

You are not defining time, you are only comparing it to other dimensions.

Space is given to be three dimensional. Each dimension (X, Y, Z or height, width, length or what ever you want to name them) denotes a comparison. Height is the relative comparison between two points on the Z plane, etc. Volume is is amount of space contained within the relative changes in the X, Y and Z planes (or something to that effect).

If you are going to define time in relation to space, then it needs to be something like the measure of change in moving from one point to another in the X,Y and Z planes.

Now I am sure you will come up with some theoretical physicist who shows this is completely wrong, and no doubt you will unleash a torrent of scientific terminology to support that position. So I'll try to make sense of whatever you respond with. :wink:

Man i had such a good post and then i hit freaking backm stupid mouse buttons! I will try again tomorrow.



You are a pretty cool guy. I don't agree of course--but you are fair. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Dec 23 2007, 05:00 PM
IT: I understand why you have no reply to the lucid dreaming example.  It refutes your position.    You either have to accept the yoga world view on the "evidence" of lucid dreaming, or discount personal "visions" and "experience" and the like as evidence for your supernatural views to be consistent.  Tough dilemma for you.

You obviously don't understand.

You typically do not speak to things that you choose not to, and are extremely selective in what you do respond to.

I understand why you do not extend the same courtesy to others.

So, would you have voted for Reagan?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Jeffrey... I truly wish I could put my view into words that would make it easier to understand. I can't. Suffice to say that I don't adhere to either of the Big Two: Christianity or Islam. I have no wish whatsoever to limit anyone else's freedom, and aside from taking the occasional poke at Islam for some of the barbaric crap that's still being carried out in the name of that religion, I respect the beliefs of others.

I find that religious fundamentalism is just as distasteful to me as the constant hammering on the nonexistence of God. I guess if someone's mind could be changed through a bunch of postings on an internet forum, then their beliefs weren't grounded in much of anything, in the first place.

What I find most wearying, is that the minute someone mentions their belief in God, there are a bunch of atheists trying to ram their point of view down everyone's throat.

Like I said: If you believe in God, believe in God and be happy. If you don't believe in God, don't believe in God and be happy. :shrug:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Dec 23 2007, 09:05 PM

I understand why you do not extend the same courtesy to others.


Jeffery has a psychological problem? :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Hey Jeff -- next time you are lucid dreaming, stop by and tell me what twenty bottles of wine are in my liquor cabinet.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Dec 23 2007, 09:19 PM
Hey Jeff -- next time you are lucid dreaming, stop by and tell me what twenty bottles of wine are in my liquor cabinet.

If he hasn't been drinking them first! :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Moonbat
Dec 23 2007, 05:09 PM

Man i had such a good post and then i hit freaking backm stupid mouse buttons! I will try again tomorrow.

Sounds like there is a lesson in there somewhere about what time is...
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
IT: "selective"

As are you. I think not everything you say is worth responding to, and perhaps you feel the same about my posts. Cheers!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
ivorythumper
Dec 23 2007, 08:19 PM
Hey Jeff -- next time you are lucid dreaming, stop by and tell me what twenty bottles of wine are in my liquor cabinet.


Hang on, I'm seeing something coming through......

Posted Image
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Jeffery is indeed a Mad Dog. But as far as seeing 20/20, I'm not so sure. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Seeing how often the debates on cosmology, theology, intelligent design, and evolution come up and most of you seem a bit less than always perfectly informed, I've decided to write down the truth for your future reference. [Heck, I'll put it in its own thread for easier referencing and linking in the future. Link here: http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_New_Coffee...showtopic=30370 ]

[size=5]How the universe has come to be:

The Truth of Cosmology, Theology, Intelligent Design, and Evolution[/size]


Let's get few basic things cleared up:

  • The theory of evolution is basically correct -- man did evolve from apes, all animals did evolve from puddles of primordial soup
  • The theory of intelligent design is also correct -- an Intelligent Designer was involved, and said Designer did set the "right" set of standard constants to guide the formation of the galaxies and stars and planets and various life forms that sprang forth.
  • The Big Bang theory is basically correct
  • There was a "before" prior to the Big Bang, and GOD was there.
Here's the complete and total truth about how it all really came to be:

7. Modern science has pretty much worked out the evolutionary map from what we see today as animals and plants back to the "primodial soup," and that's basically correct. Let's skip this part and work backwards. It's noted that the "evolution" was "guided" within the confines of "limits" and "standard constants" set by an Intelligent Designer.

6. Modern science has pretty much worked out the cosmology from what we observe today as planets, stars, galaxies, "black holes," etc. all the way to the "Big Bang." Let's skip this part too and work from the "Big Bang" and go backwards. It is also noted that the gradual formation of planets, stars, galaxies, "black holes," etc. was "guided" within the confines of "limits" and "standard constants" set by an Intelligent Designer.

5. An Intelligent Designer did set the initial condition for "Big Bang" to happen. What modern science and monotheistic "creator-god" based theology haven't got right is: "How that Intelligent Designer came to be?"

4. Truth is, the Intelligent Designers themselves are products of creationism and guided evolution. There is a large number of para-universes, each having anywhere from seven and quarter to 38 - 13/16 dimensions, each filled with trans-mutonic-bisenthium particles, quasi-tetronurineon-strings, and psuedo-quisaridium-thetabranes vibrating, moving, colliding, combining, and eventually forming what became the Intelligent Designers, one of whom created the Big Bang that gave birth to our universe, one of many he designed and created.

3. Of course, the vibration, movement, collision, and combinations of the trans-mutonic-bisenthium particles, supra-quasi-tetronurineon-strings, and psuedo-quisaridium-thetabranes, though seemingly "random" even to most of the Intelligent Designers, are actually operating within tight limits and, in that sense, precisely guided by yet a higher order Designer.

2. The higher order Designer, known as the Grand Original Designer, or GOD, created those large number of para-universes and set the initial conditions for each of them. One of which gave birth to our Intelligent Designer.

1. The GOD itself is a product of random chance. Its four base elemental materials are luminousitope-isochron, omni-zenthium, varianeum-sumaunicron, and equison.

0. The luminousitope-isochron, omni-zenthium, varianeum-sumaunicron, and equison are available in abundance and interact randomly in a fourty two dimensional super-para-universe that just is and has always been there.

And that is how it all came to be.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Jeffrey
Dec 23 2007, 07:44 PM
IT: "selective"

As are you. I think not everything you say is worth responding to, and perhaps you feel the same about my posts. Cheers!!

Cheers to you too,

So would you have voted for Reagan? :wink:
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
ivorythumper
Dec 24 2007, 02:11 AM
Moonbat
Dec 23 2007, 05:09 PM

Man i had such a good post and then i hit freaking backm stupid mouse buttons! I will try again tomorrow.

Sounds like there is a lesson in there somewhere about what time is...

fsk it i did it again! saldkjaslkdjsalkjdlaskdhlskahbdl

*Focuses on Christmas thoughts*

*Beathes deeply*

*Kicks midget*

Ok better.

Right. Time.

We have an intuitive concept of time which is sufficient for everyday speech, we have this idea that there is the present - now, that there is a past that has been and that there is a future that has not yet happened. One might encapsulate our common sense style intuition in the following sense. There is a spotlight that gradually moves across a darkened room, where the spot light has been is the past where the spotlight is currently is the present where the spotlight has yet to travel is the future.

I don't really think these kinds of definitions are useful because careful examination reveals that one is defining time based on some implicit concept of time one already has. (E.g. the spotlight moves, but the concept of movement is already bound up with time).

If we begin to look a bit more deeply we might say something like time is a measure of the potential for change or something along those lines, but this still fails the circularity test. A proper definition of time cannot be dependent on time, that is a proper definition of time must be inherently static, with no dynamics (for anything dynamic requires time), but it must also be capable of explaining why we observe dynamics as we do.

The block time concept which AFAIK is implicit to realist interpretations of special and general relativity achieves this. Here one considers time to be a dimension, a plane like the spacial dimensions. So our world is not three dimensional at all. It is 4 dimensional there is x,y,z and t.

Suppose you have some object in front of you, now you have these three spacial dimensions that we are familiar with so you can imagine choosing a point within thiis object and asking a question like what is the density at this point, or what is the charge at this point or a similar kind of question, suppose you now consider changing the position of this point, you don't change the height of the point or the depth of the point but you move it horizontally to the left, also imagine you've frozen time so you're not doing this physically, really you're just thinking about how the charge or the density or some other physical varies along a horizontal line. I mean if this object is a homogenous cube then there will be no variance as you think so if you plotted a graph of density again horizontal position it would be a horizontal line. On the other hand if the object for some reason gets denser say from right to left then you'd end up with diagonal line. The idea i'm trying to get across is that one can understand the idea of some quantity varying with a spacial dimension. Now instead of choosing to scan this point horizontally, we could scan vertically again freezing time so we're just looking a the density or charge (or whatever) profile across a section of this object. And we could do the same thing scanning across the depth.

The above paragraph should be fairly intuitive if i;ve explained it sufficiently. The physical concept of time is ultimately the same kind of thing a dimension like the spacial dimensions, so now we keep the three spacial dimensions fixed and considering how a quantity at some point varies with "time", and again we could plot a graph of density (or whatever the quantity is) again time and if it was homogenous it would be a straight line or if it was increasing linearly it would be a diagononal line etc. it's just like the example before where we keepy the time and two of the spacial dimenions constant and considering how some quantity varied with the other spacial dimension, except now we are keeping the three spacial dimension fixed and seeing how some quantity varies with the temporal dimension.

So the physical concept of time really is that it is like space, it's another plane (though our intuitive ideas of space really correspond to Euclidean space which has a certain kind of structure whereas the space-time "space" has a different kind of structure). The reason time seems different to us than space is because reality is ordered (i would use the word structured except i used it above and now i'm talking about the nature of the elements in the space rather than the nature of the space itself) with respect to the temporal dimension, it is the structure of reality with respect to the temporal dimensions which is ultimately reponsible for our intuitive concepts of dynamics and of past and present.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
In the famous words of Tootor Turtle...
Posted Image
Help, Mr. Wizard!!!!

I'll work on this, MB -- if anyone else gets it maybe they can help explain it.

I a missing the point of "we might say something like time is a measure of the potential for change or something along those lines," rather than simply time is the measure of change.

It took me a certain amount of time to formulate that thought and to structure that idea and to communicate it -- the formulation and communicate were "change" and the difference between the two states is "time" which can be measured.

I am also missing the point as to why you say "The reason time seems different to us than space is because reality is ordered (i would use the word structured except i used it above and now i'm talking about the nature of the elements in the space rather than the nature of the space itself) with respect to the temporal dimension, it is the structure of reality with respect to the temporal dimensions which is ultimately reponsible for our intuitive concepts of dynamics and of past and present."

What does it mean that reality is ordered with respect to the temporal dimension? Do you mean our perception of reality is ordered with respect to the temporal dimension? Why is not it also ordered to the reality (or our perception of reality) to the spatial dimensions? We exist and know only in space and time (even the interior space and time of our minds).

The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

I a missing the point of "we might say something like time is a measure of the potential for change or something along those lines," rather than simply time is the measure of change.


Well for a given period of time, measured for instance with a clock, different systems may change a different amount (e.g. two objects travelling at different velocities will travel a different distance in the same quantity of time).

The description i gave that you quote is also inadequate, for the reasons i gave - ultimately time is not a measure of change or even the potential for change really time is something quantities can change with respect to just as space is something quantities can change with respect to.

Quote:
 

It took me a certain amount of time to formulate that thought and to structure that idea and to communicate it -- the formulation and communicate were "change" and the difference between the two states is "time" which can be measured.


But it is not the difference between the two states that is time, suppose we simplify the example (for your thinking and communicating is an exceedingly complex process), suppose a car travels at a certain velocity for a certain amount of time, the difference between the two states initial and final is not an amount of time it's a difference in position. Likewise suppose one blows up a balloon that takes some time but the difference between final and initial states is again not time but a difference in volume or pressure etc. time is what the volume changes with respect to, (or in the case of the car what the position relative to other objects changes with respect to).

Quote:
 

I am also missing the point as to why you say "The reason time seems different to us than space is because reality is ordered (i would use the word structured except i used it above and now i'm talking about the nature of the elements in the space rather than the nature of the space itself) with respect to the temporal dimension, it is the structure of reality with respect to the temporal dimensions which is ultimately reponsible for our intuitive concepts of dynamics and of past and present."

What does it mean that reality is ordered with respect to the temporal dimension? Do you mean our perception of reality is ordered with respect to the temporal dimension? Why is not it also ordered to the reality (or our perception of reality) to the spatial dimensions? We exist and know only in space and time (even the interior space and time of our minds).


Well it is not simply our perception that is ordered (our perception is simply some aspect of the physical world), what i mean is that reality has a certain structure such that one sees a certain kind of variance or pattern with respect to the temporal dimension.

So first one needs to try and grasp the main idea and to do that i'll pick the simplest possible situation, so suppose we consider a world that is composed only of 1 spacial dimension and we consider a single particle in that world that oscillates, so what i mean is we imagine that there is a line and on this line there is a particle that can move along this line with respect to time, intuitively we would imagine this to be a dot moving backwards and forwards along the line. The blocktime position says there is no dot on a line that is moving, the truth is that there is a curve on a plane. That is reality - a curve on a plane.

Starting the other way round and with a 2 spacial dimensions and one temporal hence a 3 dimensional shape, imagine this shape sitting infront of you with the length and depth as the two spacial dimensions and the height being the temporal dimension. Suppose the shape is a cone sitting on it's wide base with the tip pointing up. If one translates this back into our intutive idea of time then what we are saying is that it describes a circle in a plane which starts off a certain size and as time passes it shrinks and shrinks and shrinks untill it reaches a point then it vanishes.

To make an analogy with reference to the real world, suppose reality is a film, (possibly with a beginning but possibly that strethches back forever, possibility with an end but possibly stretching on forever). But now consider not the film playing but every frame layed in front of you. So the blocktime picture says that each frame is real, each one is true, all are out there "happening" in a sense.

The universe or rather the physical world is an object, an extremely complicated object in space-time.

When i said reality is ordered or structured with respect to the temporal dimension i mean that in our world if one looked at the 4d shape of reality and scanned along the time axis you would see certain patterns, it is the nature of these patterns which defines times arrow. If one is looking at a bit of the structure that corresponds to an observer one finds that at each point in time the 3d pattern of the observer is in some sense correlated with the 3d shape shape of the surrounding structure at point in the past rather than in the future.

In terms of why reality is like this. I have no idea. There may be an answer to that particular question but the fundamental problem like the problem of existence will remain, because no matter what answer one comes up with one is still left with the same question - but why is it like that? Hence it seems to me that there can be no ultimate answer and that reality simply is the way it is. (Or to put it another way, there is no problem it is simply difficult for us to deal with the fundamentals of reality)
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Only Moonbat would continue posting this on Christmas morning. :P

(Across no-man's land, one can see candles flickering in the trenches, and the faint strains of a well-known hymn - Stille Nacht, Heil'ge Nacht.....and then, a gunshot! Damn atheists!)
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Oh i don't mean offense, i don't want to be shooting at carol singers across the trenches it's just that since the conversation has evolved into a discussion of physical concepts of time i thought that was innocuous enough but if people feel otherwise then i will stop immediately.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Wow, it was a lot of work to read through the whole thread, so I think I deserve to state my own point of view :lol:

I am an agnostic.

I am not too happy with religion, because I have a big problem with the notion of "believing" in something without having a proper reason to do so.

I like science, and it is my day job to think in scientific terms, but many of the most fundamental questions are outside of the scientific domain, and can never be answered by science. I also strongly reject scientific realism (i.e., the idea that science aims at truth or something like that). A scientific model is just one particular model that is not per se better or worse than any other (e.g. a religious) model of reality. Scientific realism renders science into religion.

In contrast to most other participants in this thread, I seem to be the only one who has mainly questionmarks rather than exclamation marks in his head about these questions.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
That's OK Moonbat, no need to stop. I enjoy reading the exchanges, even though I must confess sometimes I start skimming and really don't know what in the H you guys are talking about. . .
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Quote:
 

I like science, and it is my day job to think in scientific terms, but many of the most fundamental questions are outside of the scientific domain, and can never be answered by science. I also strongly reject scientific realism (i.e., the idea that science aims at truth or something like that). A scientific model is just one particular model that is not per se better or worse than any other (e.g. a religious) model of reality. Scientific realism renders science into religion.


Just you wait until Christmas passes - there is so much wrong with that! :P

But for now... Merry Chistmas :)
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Moonbat
Dec 25 2007, 01:38 AM
Quote:
 

I like science, and it is my day job to think in scientific terms, but many of the most fundamental questions are outside of the scientific domain, and can never be answered by science. I also strongly reject scientific realism (i.e., the idea that science aims at truth or something like that). A scientific model is just one particular model that is not per se better or worse than any other (e.g. a religious) model of reality. Scientific realism renders science into religion.


Just you wait until Christmas passes - there is so much wrong with that! :P

But for now... Merry Chistmas :)

Until 5 years ago or so I used to believe what you do: That science is the only real deal, that everybody who is religious "obviously" has a naive (and wrong) model of the world etc.

Over the last years I have become much more humble about the role of science, especially after studying the writings of people like Arthur Koestler, Feyerabend, Kuhn, or van Fraassen. My point of view on other domains has changed similarly, e.g., in mathematics I have turned from Platonism to Formalism, after studying the works of Gödel, Frege, Tarski and other guys.

Anyway, Merry Christmas to you, too :)
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Klaus - For an overview and proper reply to Kuhn and Feyerabend, you could read Richard Boyd (among others). Here is a widely used text on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Science-R...98592088&sr=8-1

If scientific realism isn't true, it is impossible to explain how science progresses and improves and reaches common understanding of disputed topics, while other areas (e.g. religion, tarot card reading, astrology) do not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 6
  • 14