Regarding Franko...

[Franko]

not completely random...and it has to do with a potential temporal paradox which you seem unwilling to take into account

potential temporal paradox?

say that 5 times real quick.

You see Wraith if only we were smart Physicists and understood the potential temporal paradox, or 10 extra invisible dimensions, or multi worlds interpretation then it would all be clear to us.

Obviously there is no evidence for invisible Gods, but there is loads of evidence for invisible extra dimensions, invisible aliens, invisible blackholes, and an infinite number of complete invisible parallel UNiverses! You have to be some sort of stupid Religious person not to see the real things that are invisible!!!

 

[Tricky]

Trixy,

You stupid Twit! Maybe you should see if you can get a copy of the Bible?

Got one. It was given to me when I was confirmed into the Episcopal church. I read the whole thing. Lot of characters. Plot jumps around a lot. Some good stuff in there though.

 

[Franko]

Got one. It was given to me when I was confirmed into the Episcopal church. I read the whole thing. Lot of characters. Plot jumps around a lot. Some good stuff in there though.

A Christian friend swears to me that there is a hidden flaw in Atheism. He says that he can't explain the hidden flaw, but if you keep reading the Bible you will eventually see it yourself.

Personally, I think he's crazy.

 

[Tricky]

A Christian friend swears to me that there is a hidden flaw in Atheism. He says that he can't explain the hidden flaw, but if you keep reading the Bible you will eventually see it yourself.

Personally, I think he's crazy.

Yeah, I would worry about anybody who made claims but then couldn't explain them because "you're too closed minded to understand."

 

[wraith]

You see Wraith if only we were smart Physicists and understood the potential temporal paradox, or 10 extra invisible dimensions, or multi worlds interpretation then it would all be clear to us.

haha!
Oh that just goes without saying

 

[whitefork]

Now, about the pellucid pristine simplicity of Einstein's mathematics, beginning with tensor calculus, please.....

And the non-existence of black holes....

Do you require that the truth be simple and easy to understand?

 

[Mordred]

Was that you noticing where I was trying to steer Franko, whitefork? Or did you pick up on that one independently?

 

[Franko]

Mildred,

Here’s the deal.

Either the explanation for QM and the “Big Bang” (i.e. the nonexistence of time and space) are ultimately comprehensible, or they are not. If they are comprehensible, then the Universe is ultimately Deterministic, Objective, and Logical. If they are ultimately incomprehensible, then regardless of what you want to call it they are Unpredictable, Subjective, Random, Magic, and Supernatural.

According to You, Heisenberg, and Bell there are no hidden variables, and the whole process is ultimately magical. Say what you want, but those are the facts. Unless you want to explain where Bell went wrong?

Nitwit A-Theist intoned:
Do you require that the truth be simple and easy to understand?

Face it nitwit you are happy with the Flat Earth and Man made out of clay. You don’t like the idea of round Earth’s with Men made out of Monkeys.

Mildred:
Was that you noticing where I was trying to steer Franko, whitefork?

For the Love of the Goddess! … You couldn’t steer a wheelbarrow physics-boiy.

 

[Mordred]

Mildred,

Here’s the deal.

Either the explanation for QM and the “Big Bang” (i.e. the nonexistence of time and space) are ultimately comprehensible, or they are not. If they are comprehensible, then the Universe is ultimately Deterministic, Objective, and Logical. If they are ultimately incomprehensible, then regardless of what you want to call it they are Unpredictable, Subjective, Random, Magic, and Supernatural.

How does comprehensibility imply determinism? Can you not comprehend probability or multivalent logic? I can. The people who built the mathematical basis for these things sure could...otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do so in the first place. You should also note, that the universe is subjective (relativity anyone?), and that unpredictable and uncertain are not the same things. I can predict the outcome of events, I just cannot do so with absolute certainty.

As for your constant assertions of magic...if you apply your interpretation of the definition I listed for magical...your own beliefs would also fall into that category.

 

[Franko]

Mildred,

How does comprehensibility imply determinism?

If you can’t comprehend it, I can’t explain it to you.

Can you not comprehend probability or multivalent logic? I can.

If you really comprehended them, then you could explain them.

The people who built the mathematical basis for these things sure could...otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do so in the first place.

Kind of like the Catholic Saints, I guess, huh?

You should also note, that the universe is subjective (relativity anyone?), and that unpredictable and uncertain are not the same things. I can predict the outcome of events, I just cannot do so with absolute certainty.

It’s a simple question Mildred … the kind you A-Theist Religious fanatics never seem to want to answer. IS THE UNIVERSE ULTIMATELY COMPREHENSIBLE OR NOT?

According to Verner and Johny-boy it’s definitely NOT. What’s your answer?

As for your constant assertions of magic...if you apply your interpretation of the definition I listed for magical...your own beliefs would also fall into that category.

And I assume that you know this because you have used your magic powers to read my mind and determine exactly what I believe, what I know, and what I can prove?

Tell me again … YOU are supposed to be the “Scientist”, and I am supposed to be the “Nitwit”?

 

[Mordred]

potential temporal paradox?

say that 5 times real quick.

You see Wraith if only we were smart Physicists and understood the potential temporal paradox, or 10 extra invisible dimensions, or multi worlds interpretation then it would all be clear to us.

Obviously there is no evidence for invisible Gods, but there is loads of evidence for invisible extra dimensions, invisible aliens, invisible blackholes, and an infinite number of complete invisible parallel UNiverses! You have to be some sort of stupid Religious person not to see the real things that are invisible!!!

There is strong theoretical evidence that points to the possibility of the number of dimensions exceeding four. I don't recall ever claiming that this was a certainty in any way. Invisible aliens? Never made such a claim, nor has anyone else I know. Black holes being objects with escape velocities greater than the speed of light could be called "invisible" at least in an optical sense, but their effects can certainly be detected. The infinite worlds interpretation is just a competing interpretation of quantum mechanics, which while not having experimental verification, does have very useful explanatory attributes. You would have to be some kind of stupid person to think that scientists were claiming these all as undisputed truths...

 

[Franko]

There is strong theoretical evidence that points to the possibility of the number of dimensions exceeding four. I don't recall ever claiming that this was a certainty in any way. Invisible aliens? Never made such a claim, nor has anyone else I know. Black holes being objects with escape velocities greater than the speed of light could be called "invisible" at least in an optical sense, but their effects can certainly be detected. The infinite worlds interpretation is just a competing interpretation of quantum mechanics, which while not having experimental verification, does have very useful explanatory attributes. You would have to be some kind of stupid person to think that scientists were claiming these all as undisputed truths...

Which explains why they are claiming that NO GOD is an undisputed truth?

 

[Mordred]

If you can’t comprehend it, I can’t explain it to you.

So it only makes sense to people who already believe it...that's very convincing.

If you really comprehended them, then you could explain them.

I could. I can. They are comprehensible, and I comprehend them...a great many people comprehend them, they could also explain these things to you. There have even been books written on these very subjects for the express purpose of explaining them.

Kind of like the Catholic Saints, I guess, huh?

No, more like mathematicians and logicians.

It’s a simple question Mildred … the kind you A-Theist Religious fanatics never seem to want to answer. IS THE UNIVERSE ULTIMATELY COMPREHENSIBLE OR NOT?

Yes. And to ask again the question you did not seem to want to answer...how does this necessitate determinism?

According to Verner and Johny-boy it’s definitely NOT. What’s your answer?

First off, his name is spelled Werner. Second, they only claimed such a thing if you can prove that a lack of determinism necessitates an incomprehensible universe. Demonstrate this please, or admit it is an unfounded assumption on your part.

And I assume that you know this because you have used your magic powers to read my mind and determine exactly what I believe, what I know, and what I can prove?

Nothing of the sort. Your beliefs need to explain exactly the same things. Do your beliefs not necessitate that the universe originated from something "seemingly requiring more than human power; imposing or startling in performance; producing effects which seem supernatural or very extraordinary"? And if not, then how can you claim that your explanation of the universe is completely naturalistic...while mine is not, despite mine being based solely on observations of natural events.

Tell me again … YOU are supposed to be the “Scientist”, and I am supposed to be the “Nitwit”?

I've never called you a nitwit. I have, however, jokingly referred to you as a paranoid schizophrenic because you can't seem to remember my name correctly.

 

[Mordred]

Which explains why they are claiming that NO GOD is an undisputed truth?

Who is they? All physicists? All scientists? The people coming up with these ideas aren't using them to say anything about a god not existing. Heh, if you've ever read some of Hawking's writings you would see him doing quite the opposite.

If "they" is all atheists...then you are also incorrect, this stemming from your incorrect definition of the word. I am an atheist, and have never claimed as an undisputed truth that no god exists, or even that no god could exist. There simply is not enough evidence to prove the claim that a god exists, so I therefore do not believe the claim. If new evidence becomes available to me that can prove the claim, then I will change my position. Can you provide me with any such evidence?

 

[Franko]

So Mordred ...

Are you claiming to be an Agnostic then?

 

[Tricky]

So Mordred ...

Are you claiming to be an Agnostic then?

Instead of trying to affix the correct label to Mordred, why don't you try answering his questions? But then, asking questions is your specialty. Answering them is a bit of a weak point for you.

 

[Mordred]

So Mordred ...

Are you claiming to be an Agnostic then?

Did you see me claiming to be an agnostic? Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism. Those who use it as such are doing so incorrectly. I lack a belief in a god. Therefore, I am an atheist.

Incidentally, I asked an interesting question that I don't think has been answered yet...

Can you (or anyone else for that matter) provide an explanation for the interference pattern that arises in the double slit experiment using a deterministic model?

 

[BillyJoe]

Defintions again:

gnostic: One who believes that it is possible to know (whether there is a God).

agnostic: One who does not believe that it is possible to know (whether there is a God).

But, of course, nobody agrees on definitions and this is the cause of many arguments which lead nowhere.

 

[BillyJoe]

wraith,

BillyJoe: Probability = Magic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wraith: I prefer to say that randomness is magic

Is the outcome of a coin toss magic then?

BillyJoe: And TLOP doesn't include quantum probability?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wraith: In absolute terms, no. But to US it appears probable (not enough info)

Are you saying that, if we had "enough info" we would be able to determine the outcome of quantum events?

BillyJoe: Are you saying that quantum probability means that when we replay a video, the outcome should be different?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wraith: yeah, still I prefer to use randomness than probability

I did mean an actual video, wraith.
If you do as well, are you saying that, when we watch "The Terminator" a second time and it is the same as when we watched it the first time, that is evidence against quantum probability?

BillyJoe.

 

[wraith]

wraith,

Is the outcome of a coin toss magic then?

Why do you say that?

Are you saying that, if we had "enough info" we would be able to determine the outcome of quantum events?

YEAH!

I did mean an actual video, wraith.
If you do as well, are you saying that, when we watch "The Terminator" a second time and it is the same as when we watched it the first time, that is evidence against quantum probability?

I like the tennis ball flying through the wall better


Anyway, I wouldnt use the video as such as "evidence." Different situation. What if I taped the ball going through the wall?
You end up arguing what was actually taped rather than QM.