Total posts: 30
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
"You can't prove that it isn't red" is a a sentence with two negatives. It should be logically equivalent to "You can prove the ball is red"
For your analogy it means while you believe the ball is red, you are also making the assertion that another person can prove the ball is red. While prove is of course in the loosest of terms. Man walks by faith and there is no proof you won't be hot by a car crossing the road. Looking both ways just gives you enough information to gain assurance in your steps that you believe you won't be hit by a car.
The counter argument in regards to your analogy to religious beleive and atheism is the counter argument to the ball being red is "there is no way the ball can be red."
See the logical equivalent "You can prove the ball is red" is only refuted completely by a mutually exclusive assertion "there is no way the ball is red."
The argument that ball may be another color is not exclusive to the "you can't prove the ball isn't red"
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
Thanks, but reading your posts gave nothing to debate over. All I read was vitriol. Ridiculously funny atheist cliche stereotypes like 'go at herder' and mental midget. Funny stuff. You seemed more inspired to pontificate put downs and insults than to discuss the statements made.
You don't need my help to be a troll. So I bid you goodbye and will exit, what at first appeared to be a conversation, but I now realize is your soapbox.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
And yet that's how a lot of relativistic effects appear. From 2 different frames of reference 2 contradictory scenes can appear. The only trick is to apply that same effect to time itself.
And google other relativistic effects related to electromagneticism. They from 2 frames of reference appear completely different.
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
I expected too much from you. Enjoy the forums.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Right. Or at least that's the face value paradox.
The links I gave suggest a mathimatical quantum solution that 2 observers could have relativistic effects of their respective flow of times observing the same events.
Hence one observer would see a dynamically evolving system while another ''super observer'' either unentangled from the system or access to greater amount of information.. or maybe as simple as seeing the whole universe curled as a smaller dimension of their universe.. satisfies that both perspectives could exist at the same ''time''
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Yes in the proposed concept future past present would all appear the same to the super observer. And I'd agree future events to us would be accurately ''static'' to the super observer.
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
But, there's nothing to ponder, no concepts that engage the brain, there's only mythology and superstitions
I disagree on this point. (I'll concede the previous ones of harm and reversible that you made.. I think inevitable outcomes of power)
Take for instance the right things of Plato or Saint Augustine. They argued for the Logos (plato) or God's nature (augustine)
And these responses to questions like ''how many Angel's fit on the head of a pin?'' Or ''What was before God made everything?'' Show some interesting mental gymnastics that later influenced scientific thoughts of time and space.
Like Bacon thought space was nothing and Cartes argued it was something because 'nothing' can't exist.. and yeah I think the argument is sophistry but the thought.. ''what is God like?'' Has given insightful higher dimensional weird and fascinating concepts that have in fact influenced the understanding of the real world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well that would be another interesting discussion. What would time be like to the 'super observer'?
While the 'SO' may have it's own time line.. before, present, future.. it may experience the normal observer's time line as a static one piece representation. Like a piece of glass with slices in it.
Dipping into the theological for a second.. Saint Augustine (a classical philosopher and good read no matter what) answered the bbc question ''what was before God created the universe?'' His arguments actually smack of relativity on some points.. but I digress he argued 'before' is part of time and God made time when he made the universe therefore 'before' is mute nonsensical.
Am I understanding you correctly?
Created:
Posted in:
Another question may be.. is it true a pen is held by the professor to person with their back to the professor?
Again taking the approach that the only truthful statements are those a person can self realize is fraught with disaster, smacks of ego.
Created:
-->
@Goldtop
Religiosity is a very prevalent part of human cultures through out history. And good arguments can be made about systems of power based in religious practices. But the prevalence, I would argue does suggest an evolutionary benefit derived from such thought.
I might even argue that many intelligent people are religious and that the pondering, meditation upon theological concepts is like a work out for the brain creating schemas adaptable to the application of abstract constructs.
Which is quite useful when problem solving.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The super observer should have a higher fidelity of seeing which path a particle took. This is due to more information being available to them and completing the equations as they due in a normal measurement causes wave function collapse.
At least that is how I understand it.
Again good searches of delayed choice experiment and other erasure experiments might give you a different insight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Look forward to it.
I also would like to hear what you think of the 'delayed choice quantum erasure' experiments.
I think it suggests a way in which decoherence can manifest again due to loss of data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
A good read downloadable here.
My citation saying what I have said is the 2nd to last paragraph. Summarized as such in last paragraph...
In summary, by running our experiment in two different modes (“observer” and “super-observer” mode) we have experimentally shown how the same energy-entangled Hamiltonian eigenstate can be perceived as evolving by the internal observers that test the correlations between a clock subsystem and the rest whereas it is static for the superobserver that tests its global properties. Our experiment is a practical implementation of the PaW mechanisms but, obviously, it cannot discriminate between these and other proposed solutions for the problem of time
Created:
-->
@Stronn
Valid points and could see rewording things in that manner. I tried to find some brain scans of newborn children to religious experience in adults, yet no luck so far as it's tough to research on my phone at the moment.
And even then that would not be sufficient evidence due to the riddled nature of neural plasticity and devevelopment.
However I think it safe to assume no one really knows the spiritual life or beliefs of newborn babies. And still find fault in an assertion either way.
But I'll continue to use the referencecI made as at least as you said the manifestation of such thought at least that early and potentially earlier if I could find the brains scans I remember seeing once.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Actually the experiment remarks on this collapse as being relative to the information the observer has determined by the entanglements the observer is part of.
Plus collapse of the wave function is not binary. Partial collapse can occur and experiments using films have been able to skew results.
The take away is that to one observer a collapse of wave system has occured while to another with an entangled perspective can still see it as indeterminate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Prevention.
You are using that word but I don't think you know what it means.
Pay me not to bust your teeth in, and we can call that prevention.
In the old days they called that pizzo. A illegal racquet of protection money paid to mafia to protect shop owners from.. guess who.. the mafia.
Ie Extortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
How would you describe the results of Young's double slit experiment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Thank you for the reply. As my post illustrated to, I don't think it has to be a question a one or the other. I don't think omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive.
And that, as with the the photon electing right or left slit, inside the this timeline of entangled observers that path would be random. That maybe some choices could be made that are not the sum of causal interactions, free from cause and effect. ( I don't negate influence of nurture nature ect..) But that a free choice could be made. And yet to a super observer that free choice would appear predetermined.
I understand you might say free will doesn't exist because it's illusion brought about by a lack of omnipotent knowledge. However I think the experiment I showed is interesting in that, it's not a lack of knowing the timeline or the outcome, That either path of the photon would appear predetermined to a super observer because they are not quantumly entangled in the same temporal region.
It's relative not exclusive to either perspective.
Created:
-->
@Reece
Turtles can breathe air from water not with gills but through their buttholes.
The turtle is my totem animal. They stand for long live and perseverance.
Created:
Posted in:
Was the word "red" invented or discovered?
I think it was invented to describe the property we collectively agree to be the hue "red".
Just like "Rosa" was invented.
Math is the same way. It's a collection of axioms used in a system of rules to perform functions, manipulations of input data to arrive at conclusions we all agree are properly performed mathematical conclusions. These conclusions are helpful in describing real events and other phenomenon where quantities are relevant.
But it is a language invented to describe the relationship of quantities, coordinates, ratios, sets. To say it was discovered would be to assert that the number "one" is some real, yet abstract entity that exists. (Sounds border line theological, which I'm okay with)
While I might say the number "1" is an existing abstract entity, the system Math would still be a collection of rules and statements invented to describe such an entity and it's relationship, comparison to other such entities.
New relationships are being discovered. New properties of these entities are being discerned. But all within the context of a system created to describe them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Cool job keep sharing. I just posted some of my fave gospels.
Going to watch some more vids in a bit.
Created:
Posted in:
Lord give me a sign
DMX
Crowns and Thorns(Oceans)
KB
(wait for the drop)
I will fail you
Demon Hunter
Same Power
Jeremy Camp
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
The middle class is moving to under the poverty line and the richest get richer. I know.
Is there a solution to the dichotomy? I think so. I think it is in a fundamental shift in mentality and the adequate removal of greed and social-economic desires for cheap labor and cheaply made easy disposable products.
That if there was a return to caring for, repairing what's present instead of bigger-better-faster then a economic system based on services and advancement could be achieved.
What have you done to bring such a world about? Is standing on a street corner shouting messages of doom aided the pendulum of change to swing to towards paradise?
Created:
-->
@Castin
I would bring balance to the world by killing half of everyone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
--> @Analgesic.Spectre
In fact, I.Q. predicts income and educational achievement (things which, I hope we can agree, are indicators of intelligence)Not only that, but I.Q. is the best predictor of educational level, occupational level and income level (again, more indications of intelligence).
And if we don't agree that those are indicators of intelligence?
+1
"So I concluded that wisdom is better than might, but a poor man's wisdom is despised; no one ever listens to his advice."
NET Bible
Ecclesiastes 9:16
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I think if that was done, the cost of milk would hit 20 dollars. And gas 100 a gallon. The ability to buy goods would create shortages and price would adjust accordingly. There is a reason poverty exists, and I doubt it has much to income.
Cheap labor, the need for people to segregate and establish orders, ect...
To eliminate poverty would be a downsize in population, an increase in education, and program of motivation to make everyone's contribution to economic social success equally valuable.
Ideally remove the love of money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vaarka
I agree. The aptitude to register a truth doesn't negate it's truthfulness.
I should clarify. Truth being defined as in accordance with reality. The professor holding the pen was in fact doing so. And was in accordance, agreement with the reality that a pen was being held by a professor.
The ability to register that facet of reality is in my opinion not required to for the statement to be truthful.
Better arguments can be made philosophically about types of reasoning which discuss the discernment of truthful statements. But alas.. "The snow is white" is a true statement only if the snow is ACTUALLY white.
Created:
-->
@linate
I think an unlimited being would have the power to refrain itself. And the power to remove that self imposed control.
I think boiling things down to binary states removed from context is shown historically to lead to falsehoods of one tree branch or another.
Created:
Posted in:
A Mathematical experiment was conducted to discern the emergence of time from entangled particles. I think it offers insight into the coexistence of omniscience, predeterminism, and free will.
Take for instance the Young's double slit experiment. A photon is shot, one at a time, towards two slits. It is impossible to tell which slit the photo passes through without collapsing the wave function with further measurement. (rough description google can explain more)
At some level there is a "choice" that occurs that is un-discernible through cause-effect mechanisms. Now ignore the word "choice" it's no one of cognitive behavior but a result randomly chosen between two binary states (left slit right slit) unencumbered by the environment.
It's suggested that in the "Toy Universe" Experiment that an observer entangled with the environment observing the photon would be left with a random occurrence.
But that to a "super-observer", an observer not quantumly entangled or part of the system would observe a series of temporal events that would appear determinable.
If an Omniscient being did exist, if they were not a part of this universe quantumly entangled with it. They could have an experience of time different from ours. But almost certainly experience the passage of our time differently. And view it as predetermined and known while.. we inside this temporal universe inside the same entangled mess, would discern choice as possible.
Ergo I think Omniscient Super-Observer and an free willed internal to this universe observer are, thanks to a kind of temporal relativity, not mutually exclusive.
Created:
I think it's misleading that the first assumption unquestioned is if Children, newborns have religious beliefs after all.
Every culture in human History has developed religious thought and practices. I think it's easy to establish that religious thought is a part of human nature. And ergo present in newborn babies as well.
Children as young as 2 who can speak on their behalf have alluded to such thought patterns being innate to human physiology.
I'm not suggesting a brain based root to all religious experience. Yet offer just one path to discern if Babies have religious or theological beliefs. Sans a full panel interview with a new born.
Secondly this is off tangent but whether newborns have religious thought or not is impertinent to how an individual or society should approach religious matters. After all children left to their own devices misbehave, are cruel creatures, that poop and pee on themselves.
I disagree with the statement that babies are atheist. And only partially agree with agnostic if belief is defined as a cognitive construction akin to knowledgeable thought.
Created: