| 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: |
| Do you believe there is extra-terrestrial life? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 13 2008, 01:58 AM (1,397 Views) | |
| Moonbat | May 16 2008, 05:33 AM Post #51 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
In your thought experiment by definition you existed since you start off by assuming you existed and then had all references to you removed. There are very good reasons for thinking that your ministry of truth is not possible even in principle - that is that it's not possible for information to be destroyed. There has been some question about that whether black holes could do it but i think that whilst it hasn't been definitively answered most cosmologists don't think that's the case (Hawking for instance conceded his bet on the topic) e.g. http://www.physorg.com/news130000012.html What you are actually proposing is a multiverse view of reality. That is a realist interpretation infact it is arguably _the_ realist interpretation of modern physics. Suppose you fire electrons one at at time through a double slit at a phosphorus screen such that by recording where the phosphrus screen lights up you build up a diffraction pattern. Then you ask which slit each electron travelled through? As far as we know there is no information in the observeable universe that will tell you the answer to that question. In the Everett interpretion, the answer is that for every electron there are two pasts that are equally real - one in which the electron went through one slit the other in which it went through the other. It is the interference between these two branches of reality which results in the interference pattern that builds up on the phosphorus screen. However this interpretation does not make mythology as true as science, it does not mean science has nothing to do with truth and it does not support anti-realism! |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | May 16 2008, 06:37 AM Post #52 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
So you are saying that the whole state of the universe at every point in the past could in principle be reconstructed from the current state? Or put another way, that the current state implicitly "remembers" all previous states? It is somewhat hard to imagine that if I will my 4 Gig RAM with some data only available on this computer (such as a set of random numbers), and I override the RAM with something else, that the information is still "there". Somewhere I read something about an interesting relation between information theory and thermodynamics. Maybe this is related to what you are saying? |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | May 16 2008, 07:53 AM Post #53 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
I really don't understand the topic well enough but presumably if information cannot be destroyed the answer to your question is yes though i think one is going to have to be careful to think about quantum states rather than classical ones. It does link to Landauer's erasure principle - i can give you some fuzzy hand waving if you like - AFAIK the solution to the paradox of Maxwell's demon is to realise that in order for the demon to separate the hot and cold particle it must erase the information in it's mind about the particle it last looked at, but it can't do that without doing work and increasing the entropy of it's surroundings. So really what it's doing is lowering the entropy of it's mind by increasing the entropy of it's surroudings, or in information terms it's lowering the information content of it's mind by increasing the information content of the surroundings. In your example of RAM well to change the contents of the memory physical operations have to be performed, voltages applied magnetic fields created, etc. etc. these things will push and pull on the surrounding atoms of gas and cause electronic excitations etc. etc. so one can begin to see why in principle the pattern could be recoverable. There is an article here that's been on my reading list for ages that i've dipped in and out of on occasion: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0103108 that might quite good. Alternatively there are two pop-sci books on the link between information theory and physics i didn't either were that great. One is "Decoding the Universe" by Charles Seife, the other is "Programming the Universe" by Seth Loyd. I think Seife's is the slightly better of the two. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | May 19 2008, 11:27 PM Post #54 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I don't believe in giant flying lizards. But then again, I don't "believe" in science either. I appreciate scientific models and explanations because they make good predictions. I like it for pure pragmatic reasons. But this is not a reason why the scientific explanation is "more true" or "more real" than the giant flying lizard. You have given no single reason or piece of evidence why science is "more real" than other models other than repeating what I said: They are better in predicting things. But this is not the same as being real or true, at least not for me. |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | May 20 2008, 04:27 AM Post #55 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Of course it is a reason - why do you think they are better at predicting things? It is because they are capturing aspects of the truth! What else is your explanation for the predictive power of certain theories? Why is it that using my theory that there are planets moving in elipses i can predict how the little lights i see in the sky at night move but using a theory that there are balls of light locked in a crystal sphere i fail to predict how the little lights i see in the sky move? Why does it work? It's because there really are planets that move in approximately the way we say they move and there really aren't small lights in giant crystal spheres! It's nonsense to seperate pediction from accuracy, it's totally incoherent i mean what are you really saying? Do you believe that eclipses occur when the moon passes in between the Earth and the sun such that there points on the Earth where the light from the sun is blocked out or not? Is that not true? Is that as true as the giant lizard story? Is it just as true that a giant lizard eats the sun as it is that the moon blocks the light coming from the sun? You really think those two descriptions are equally true? What about the idea that magots come from eggs layed by flies rather than spontaneously appearing whereever you have damp things? Is that true? This is just madness - one of my friends father's is a psychiatrist and he told me of a patient who thought people were out killhim and when asked why he responded by explaining that when he put his goldfish in the kettle it died therefore the water must have been poisoned. You seem to think that the model involving the fish being invulernable to boiling water but being killed by a otherwise undetectable poison is as true as the claim that the fish died because it can't survive being boiled. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| JBryan | May 20 2008, 04:33 AM Post #56 |
![]()
I am the grey one
|
Actually, the ancients who believed this were rather good at predicting the motion of the planets. It is just that the motions they had to ascribe to them were rather more complex than they needed to be. But the fact that they were good at predicting these motions does not mean the truth was captured in their model. |
|
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | May 20 2008, 04:39 AM Post #57 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Fair enough and in a sense they were capturing some of the truth but their model cannot account for the motion of all the stars because some of the crystal spheres would crash together. In reality there are no crystal spheres, it's not equally true to talk about a model where there are crystal spheres and a model where there aren't. In the geocentric view where they added epicycles to make the orbits of the planets fit observation then well there really is not any difference between an eliptical picture and a picture with an infinite number of epi-cycles. It's just much smarter to think in terms of an elipitcal picture. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | May 20 2008, 05:53 AM Post #58 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
You are argueing in circles. You keep saying they describe reality because they are good at predicting. But that's a non-sequitur, except if you define reality as just that. But by doing so you twist the common meaning of reality. |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | May 20 2008, 05:58 AM Post #59 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
If there are aliens, maybe we could try combing our dna with them! |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | May 20 2008, 06:04 AM Post #60 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
The only explanation of their predictive power is that they are capturing aspects of reality. How else do you explain it? Why do you think that certain theories work and other theories don't? The only explanation for why collections of symbols can be used in place of an experimental setup yet yield the same answer as the experiment is because the pattern in the symbols is the same (or approximately the same) as the pattern in the world. When you say a description is true you are saying that the world matches that description. Also you keep ignoring my questions: Do you believe that it as true to describe an eclipse in terms of a dragon that eats the sun as it is to describe an eclipse in terms of the moon moving inbetween the Earth and the sun and hence blocking the light reaching a certain part of the surface of the Earth? Do you believe it is as true to say that magots spontaneously emerge from damp objects as it is to say that they come from eggs layed by flies? Is the mental patients account of the fish being killed by undetectable poison rather than the boiling water as accurate as the description of the heat killing the fish via it's enzymes denaturing and various biological compounds breaking down? |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | May 20 2008, 06:11 AM Post #61 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No, I don't believe both are equally true. I believe that we have no idea what's really happening, hence I can't compare them. I also believe that what is really happening is not only beyond what science can explain, it's also utterly irrelevant. All that matters for a scientific theory is how good it is at predicting experiments. From the point of view of logic, the only real difference between a scientific theory and a mythological theory is that the former has a monotonic and the latter a nonmonotonic entailment relation, i.e., in the latter you can revise conclusions if you learn something that contradicts your previous knowledge. |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | May 20 2008, 06:31 AM Post #62 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
But according to you neither description is more or less true than the other right? The scientific account is not "more true" it's not more true to explain an eclipse in terms of the moon blocking light from the sun as it is to claim that a giant flying lizard is eating the sun. I disagree with you i think the dragon eating sun explanation is just complete nonsense and the moon blocking the light explanation captures aspects of reality. I also disagree with you about prediction - to pretend prediction has nothing to do with truth doesn't make sense since truth is about descriptions matching reality and prediction is about testing whether or not descriptions match reality. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 20 2008, 06:57 AM Post #63 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
What i find funny in this is that if Moonbat had lived during the time that the brightest and best believed that a dragon was responsible for it, he would have been just as stubbornly convinced of his intellectual superiority as he is now, and just as clueless. And a thousand years from now, there will exist yet another Moonbat, who will use our Moonbat's "superior understanding of science" as an example of how limited in understanding people were "back in the 21st century".... and they'll most likely be discussing how silly people were back then for thinking there was no intelligent force involved in things.... in the meantime, Moonie will have already stood before God, and learned the truth..... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 20 2008, 07:00 AM Post #64 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
No, we'll all be enjoying eternal supply of good beer and great sex in the afterlife then. |
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 20 2008, 07:03 AM Post #65 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
If that's what you value most, then yes, you'll get it....... and once you've had so much that the thought of it makes you so sick you want to die..... you'll continue to get it....... |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 20 2008, 07:06 AM Post #66 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Has nothing to do with what you or I value. That's simply how it's going to be. The only other option is oblivion.
|
![]() |
|
| Larry | May 20 2008, 07:26 AM Post #67 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
And you're omniscient, right?
Well no, it isn't. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | May 20 2008, 12:29 PM Post #68 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Science does not provide dogmatic certainty, it provides only the best bet for truth given the available evidence. One cannot do any better than that. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | May 20 2008, 12:49 PM Post #69 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
That difference means your knowledge evolves to fit the external world progressively growing more accurate in the latter and in the former bears no relation to the external world.
|
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Luke's Dad | May 20 2008, 01:52 PM Post #70 |
![]()
Emperor Pengin
|
I'm afraid I have to disagree with your chart Moonbat. God has been evidenced in my life often, and in an overwhelming manner. It has been those who choose not to believe that ignore or go to ludicrous attempts to explain away the direct influences of God in my life. When people of faith point to evidence of their interactions with divinity, all too often, the scientific atheistic community will cover their own ears and eyes and explain away the interventionas chance, random occurrence, misrepresentation or miscomprehension of the facts. |
| The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it. | |
![]() |
|
| Klaus | May 20 2008, 02:45 PM Post #71 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Well, in any case you should at least admit that this whole notion of "reality is (at least approximately) how science describes it" is completely unprovable, and there is also no evidence in favor of it. There are just successful predictions, but this doesn't mean anything with regard to the proposition above. It is in fact in itself a very unscientific proposition and subscribing to it it is just a matter of belief or faith. Not admitting this basic and trivial fact is academic dishonesty. It is, by the way, also quite interesting to see that these trivial facts about reality are also at the core of many quite old Asian philosophies. For example, Buddhists hold that one can only discuss objects which are not reality itself and that nothing can be said of reality which is true in any absolute sense. Similarly, Taoists have a famous saying, that the Tao that can be named is not the true Tao. You can of course say that all Buddhists and Taoists are stupid or superstitious, too, but I'm not sure whether this would make your point more convincing. |
| Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman | |
![]() |
|
| Orlando Gibbons | May 20 2008, 03:09 PM Post #72 |
|
Junior Carp
|
Science can only measure, describe and predict phenomena which are physically manifest. Plenty of people think that this is where reality stops. Other people don't. Simple enough. |
| http://www.threerollsandapretzel.blogspot.com | |
![]() |
|
| Horace | May 20 2008, 04:57 PM Post #73 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Religion is applied sociology, and science is applied physics. As far as I'm concerned they're both science, and both rooted in trial and error and gradual optimizations over time. |
| As a good person, I implore you to do as I, a good person, do. Be good. Do NOT be bad. If you see bad, end bad. End it in yourself, and end it in others. By any means necessary, the good must conquer the bad. Good people know this. Do you know this? Are you good? | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | May 20 2008, 05:35 PM Post #74 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
To you, is there a distinction between "religion" and "faith"? If you're going to claim that "religion" is also science, I'd say that "religion" is "bad science." As far as responding to trial and error, "science" pwns "religion."
|
![]() |
|
| Frank_W | May 20 2008, 05:46 PM Post #75 |
![]()
Resident Misanthrope
|
I like this definition. I don't see a belief in a supreme being, and science as being exclusive one to the other, nor at odds with each other, at all. I don't understand why atheism gets piggybacked with science, and then rammed down everyone's throat as a new sort of dogma. It's boorish and closed-minded.
|
|
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin." Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!" | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








Klaus! To claim that an account of an eclipse which describes said eclipse in terms of a giant flying lizard which consumes the moon and then regurgitates it having been scared off by humans beating drums is as true as an account that claim thats a a giant rock 407000 km away has moved in between the Earth and the sun and hence is blocking the light so that vastly less is reaching the eyes of people who are looking up and seeing the darkened sun, is beyond crazy. 



I don't see a belief in a supreme being, and science as being exclusive one to the other, nor at odds with each other, at all. I don't understand why atheism gets piggybacked with science, and then rammed down everyone's throat as a new sort of dogma. It's boorish and closed-minded.

4:45 PM Jul 10