OT: Jibjab, Politics, the Big Bang and more! [Archive] - Page 2

Graeme Dice

July 29th, 2004, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
So you've been fortunate your entire life. That puts you in a great position to comment on the misfortunes of others, now doesn't it?No, I've worked hard my whole life. Something I doubt that you'll bother to do despite your ranting about it.

I, on the other hand, have been in the position of being UNABLE TO AFFORD said healthcare, food, and lodging. You know what? I SURVIVED. Oddly, you don't see me advocating that this stuff be made available to all at somebody else's expense.Why should I believe a word of what you've just written? You're a known liar, so you'll have to do better than claim your own personal experiences.

Edit: Fixed the quoting

[ July 29, 2004, 00:01: Message edited by: Graeme Dice ]

NTJedi

July 29th, 2004, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
When there are people, who are capable of working, who _refuse_ to work even when offered a job - let them starve.
I somewhat agree...
if people are lazy we shouldn't just blindly feed them and give them free healthcare otherwise a percentage will reproduce and a high percentage of them will follow or be stuck the same example.

The best solution is to instead give them food for a few days and teach them how to fish. Have them realize the rewards of working such as getting healthcare. I definitely believe in helping others, but only with permanent/productive solutions... not some lifetime leeching plan.

Cainehill

July 29th, 2004, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cainehill:
I've been out of work for over four months (laid off, Marine and programmer always employed for 22 years straight), I should be supporting Graeme and the welfare state!What welfare state? I wasn't aware that the equivalent of making health insurance mandatory and universal was the equivalent of a welfare state. I'm not supporting a comfortable lifestyle for those people who don't want to work, and suggesting that I am is nothing more than a strawman. I am suggesting that a person should be guaranteed enough resources so that they aren't malnourished, as long as they don't waste those resources on anything that is unnecssary. If they want to waste that money, then yes, let them starve, but at least try and help their children so that they don't end up like their parents.
<hr /></blockquote>"Help their children so they don't end up like their parents"? In the case of the unemployed single mother with 8 kids (I believe that was the gist of your example), the only way to help the children is by taking them away from the parent. And spaying the parent. (We do it to dogs and cats, and dogs and cats are generally nicer 'people' than humans.)

You said we should support that mother of 8. That's a welfare state. You said that we should ensure that no one starves, no one is in poverty, no one is homeless, regardless of whether or not they're able to work but choose not to. That's a welfare state.

As I said - I think we ought to work harder at providing _opportunities_ for people to work; health care, education, the prison systems, etc, shouldn't be set up with profit as their sole motive (which is what privatization is all about). We should fix the system so that CEOs don't get obscene bonuses for screwing their employees, their communities, and the environment over.

But with Boy George preparing for a second term in office, and Little Jeb planning to occupy the White House after that, none of those things are going to happen. Not with the @#$#@ Bush Dynasty trying to rework the USA's politics and system.

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Even if there is only a .0000000001% chance that God does exist is more then enough reason to do what's right or risk burning in Hell eternally.There's no evidence to suggest this is a bad thing, either. According to the Bible, Heaven is hotter than Hell. It's not a nice place to be.

That's where you turn to the Bible and read where only mankind is referred to as having a soul. When that soul is created is only known by God therefore saying abortion is okay could get someone into big trouble during judgment day. I'm familiar with that part, yes. Don't you think people should be allowed to take that risk, though?

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
Apparently you:
Drive a tank throughout the town you live in.Amazingly, antique vehicles as such are not difficult to acquire at modest cost. It's not like I'm driving a state-of-the-art vehicle here. It's no different from driving a tractor or bulldozer around, a not-uncommon occurrence in rural areas where I happen to live.

Don't sleep for days at a time.I have chronic insomnia. It's not an uncommon affliction, and sleep is singularly unrestful for me.

You'be been shot in the back by people before while not at war.You said it yourself, America's a violent and dangerous place, particularly in nasty urban areas. I also have been shot before as part of work-related injuries.

Believe that if a person can do something that they must have actually done that thing.I never said that. I merely said that this is a safe assumption to operate under.

You live as a hermit, wear kevlar, and travel while heavily armed.Many heavily-armed hermits dwell in Montana. As a conversation I once had with somebody Online went as I pointed out people like you complaining about this very thing, he replied, "I'm from Montana. We call you normal."

What a coincidence that I just happen to be a resident of Montana. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Such behavior is not uncommon out here.

Body armor and weapons are not hard to come by. Need I point you to a website where you, too, can purchase your own Kevlar vests, or do you think you can manage that on your own?

That such a person exists anywhere outside of a mad max movie strains believability. Oh, be serious. Mad Max is entirely a movie. How the hell does he afford all that gas for all that driving anyway, with the world being in that condition?

Boron

July 29th, 2004, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Boron:

but if you think about it the guidlines of the church HAVE been wrong before (flat earth, anyone?) and could easily be wrong again. Thats no reason to cut all ties with the organization that you might respect and love deeply.

so a question : galilei was the one who discovered that . i am pretty sure you know the story . the catholic church forced him to deny his ideas . he did .

but now some hundred years later the pope spoke galilei holy .

Actually, I think most of the stories about people thinking the world is flat are apocryphal. Certainly, the Greeks knew it was round and the flat earth was not the reason Galileo was persecuted.

The issue there was whether the Sun or the Earth lay at the centre of the solar system. Catholic teaching demanded that it be the Earth, but Galileo knew otherwise.

And yes, official recognition of the error was only forthcoming from the Catholic church in recent times. <hr /></blockquote>yeah it was the sun . i just quoted Cheezeninja's
and didn't notice that small fault .
but the old astrologists like galileo are really good examples for that and similiar with darwin some catholic sects still claim that the bible is true and the earth got formed in 6 days .

the main problem with the catholic church i have is that they are the most "aggressive" big world religion . they evangelise still intolerant .
in history they even forced other beliefs violently to theirs like the inqisition in spain or the crusades .
on the other hand the muslims tolerated catholic beliefers in the middle ages and didn't force them to get either catholic or killed .
same with the force proselitiziation of the native americans .
protestants , buddhists and so on try to convince you rational that their faith is the one true but if they can't convince you they don't treat you as a worse human .
while the catholic church is much more agressive and treats you as inferior if you don't let you convince to become catholic and stay with your belief .

that makes me fear . fanaticism is evil . just look at bin laden . but the muslim faith is in general more tolerant bin laden is only a sect which isn't even tolerated by the muslim leaders while the catholic church seems to me much more fanatic and they tolerate , even support extreme and almost violent catholic sects .
at least in europe the catholics are this way perhaps the american catholics are more moderate because they are not as dependent on the pope as the european ones and they are not the majority in the usa so they can't afford to be as arrogant as they are in europe .
in the area where i life protestants are a small minority ( about 5-10% ) and especially the old catholics are still very intolerant and even show us protestants that we are very inferior in their eyes .
they would almost like to start a new 30 years war lol .
so my view of the catholics is perhaps a bit biased by own expierience .
of course every major group has "black sheeps" but normally the main organisation tries to get rid of these "black sheeps" .
while with the catholic church this is the other way round . there the highest leaders not only tolerate these black sheeps but even share their opinions .

it is like e.g. in a democracy still some or many politicians are corrupt but at least a democracy tries to limit corruption while in a dictature it is supported and the dictator him self profits most from that .
the pope is in many ways similiar to that .
the current pope is good and rather modest but his most likely successor ratzinger is very intolerant again .

[ July 28, 2004, 12:56: Message edited by: Boron ]

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
The best solution is to instead give them food for a few days and teach them how to fish. Have them realize the rewards of working such as getting healthcare. I definitely believe in helping others, but only with permanent/productive solutions... not some lifetime leeching plan. Well, you know the saying. Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you've just lost a perfectly good customer.

The "Work or Starve" plan, on the other hand, has a singular element of elegance to it. One way or another, the problem takes care of itself. Nature loves self-correcting systems, and so do I.

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Norfleet:
I am not a "fictional characterization".Of course you are. You're nothing more than a teenager living in your parents house. <hr /></blockquote>Either that, or perhaps he is indeed old and senile, as he claim he is. It becomes hard to distinquish the immaturity level due to very young and very old age. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But all his bizzare stories about his very own T34 that he drives around, and his duels with LAWS and guns on the highways, sugest very immature person who can not be taken seriosly. Although he clearly do not reilize it himself, thinking that he sounds cool and tough. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

PrinzMegaherz

July 29th, 2004, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by NT Jedi:
That's where you turn to the Bible and read where only mankind is referred to as having a soul. When that soul is created is only known by God therefore saying abortion is okay could get someone into big trouble during judgment day. I find the idea that god is watching us every step of our lives taking notes rather amusing. I mean why should he?

Lets assume you knew the position of every piece of matter that exists, had a complete understanding of all physical laws, and the brainpower to calculate everything (all 3 things which I assume the christian god would have), then you would know the outcome of ones live before he would even be born. So why would god create souls for people he already knows are going to burn in hell?

It is my personal understanding that we are the ones who judge ourselfes after live. Maybe we will see got and understand what we did wrong and what was right, the joy for the good things being heaven and the despise for the bad things being hell.
In any case, doing something not because you fear god could punish you is like cheating. I mean, translate it in other words: I would do it if there was no god. And I think that says everything about your personality.
Goodness is something you do from your own free will, and not because you are forced to.

[ July 29, 2004, 00:59: Message edited by: PrinzMegaherz ]

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
But all his bizzare stories about his very own T34 that he drives aroundYou want me to show you a site you can buy some of this stuff?

http://www.coldwarremarketing.com/

Go get your own. They're not THAT hard to get, you know.

and his duels with LAWS and guns on the highwaysI think you may have greatly exaggerated the magnitude of the actual shootout. It doesn't work that way in real life. Too many movies for you, Storm.

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
Lets assume you knew the position of every piece of matter that exists, had a complete understanding of all physical laws, and the brainpower to calculate everything (all 3 things which I assume the christian god would have), then you would know the outcome of ones live before he would even be born. So why would god create souls for people he already knows are going to burn in hell? Because it's funny? Let's face it: If you were an all-powerful being with such capabilities, why would you bother creating the universe at all, if not for the sheer entertainment value involved in doing so? Clearly, if there's a God, he's a very bored individual with too much time on his hands. I mean, hell, look at me. I'm just a retired old coot, and I'm bored and have too much time on my hands. What must it be like to be immortal and all-powerful, living for all eternity? Must be damn boring. I'd sure do something whacky like creating a universe or two.

If God exists, the platypus is proof that he has a sense of humor.

Cainehill

July 29th, 2004, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Even if there is only a .0000000001% chance that God does exist is more then enough reason to do what's right or risk burning in Hell eternally.
If there was a Dog who condemned people to eternal damnation in fire for not worshiping him, that Dog doesn't deserve to be worshipped.

He'd be a sadist of the worst non-consensual kind, insane, and malicious. Of course, the Bible does give some supporting evidence.

After all - a being who could design and create all the things in the universe singlehandedly would, beyond all doubt or question, be a genius of divine magnitude.

On a good day, his finest creations might well be perfection itself, or damn near. And the finest of these near perfect creations, these ... angels, might see that his creator, his overlord, was in fact a certifiable pathological monster, and rebel against him.

Lucifer, anyone?

(And anyone who both believes hir Bible to be the exact holy writ of Dog, _and_ doesn't believe God to be a monster, hasn't read very carefully. Infants slaughtered by divine decree, god approving of children being torn into pieces for mocking one of his holy prophets (one of the _very_ few who supposed was "ascended" directly into heaven without having to die first) Even the Divine Lottery - if you were born in ... Italy, you go to heaven. If you were born in .. China - hell. If you had a priest at your deathbed - heaven. If you didn't - hell. If (back in the old day) you had enough lambs to sacrifice - heaven. Too poor to own lambs? Hell.)

PrinzMegaherz

July 29th, 2004, 02:20 AM

Because it's funny? Let's face it: If you were an all-powerful being with such capabilities, why would you bother creating the universe at all, if not for the sheer entertainment value involved in doing so? Clearly, if there's a God, he's a very bored individual with too much time on his hands. I mean, hell, look at me. I'm just a retired old coot, and I'm bored and have too much time on my hands. What must it be like to be immortal and all-powerful, living for all eternity? Must be damn boring. I'd sure do something whacky like creating a universe or two.

If God exists, the platypus is proof that he has a sense of humor.
Getting bored? That would suggest that god is actually sentient in a human way. It is easy to imagine god as an elderly man with a long beard, so we can actually understand him. But maybe got is much more abstract than we can imagine. Maybe "god" is just a mathematical term that defines the laws of nature. Or maybe god is the complete soulmatter of every living being, including you and me?

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 02:22 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
But all his bizzare stories about his very own T34 that he drives aroundYou want me to show you a site you can buy some of this stuff?

http://www.coldwarremarketing.com/

Go get your own. They're not THAT hard to get, you know.

<hr /></blockquote>No thanks. Why don't you post picture of YOU on top of your tank instead, in your undeground bunker? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif That would be at least *some* proof to your lunatic claims. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

<blockquote>quote:<hr />and his duels with LAWS and guns on the highwaysI think you may have greatly exaggerated the magnitude of the actual shootout. It doesn't work that way in real life. Too many movies for you, Storm. [/QB]<hr /></blockquote>I am just repeating you own words silly, in case you have forgoten already. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif You said you have used LAWS weapons to blown up cars with some unknown dudes on the highway, who were shooting at you with their automatic weapons for no apparent reason. Perhaps too much Holywood did influenced your unstable mind, but I have no way of telling.

[ July 29, 2004, 01:26: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
Getting bored? That would suggest that god is actually sentient in a human way. It is easy to imagine god as an elderly man with a long beard, so we can actually understand him. But maybe got is much more abstract than we can imagine.I can't think of any other analogue that would explain why a being would willfully create the universe, an object which seems to serve no particular purpose.

Maybe "god" is just a mathematical term that defines the laws of nature.Yes, but if this is the case, then "god" as defined in any religious text, does not exist, since a mathematical term is not a being.

Or maybe god is the complete soulmatter of every living being, including you and me? That also doesn't fit the depiction as given by mainstream religion. Once again, such a thing is not a position to possess any sort of volition or ability to act independently, or to perform acts such as creating the universe, or consigning people to burn in hell for all eternity.

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
No thanks. Why don't you post picture of YOU on top of your tank instead, in your undeground bunker? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif That would be at least *some* proof to your lunatic claims. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Even if I wanted to do such a thing, who would hold the camera?

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
I am just repeating you own words silly, in case you have forgoten already. You said you used LAWS weapons to blown up cars with some unknown dudes on the highway, who were shooting at you with their automatic weapons for no apperent reason.No, I did not. I said I attempted to aim one at such an enemy vehicle, but did not get a clean line of fire, so didn't actually fire it. I also never said that dudes on the highway were firing automatic weapons at me. They appeared to be armed with standard, semi-automatic pistols and rifles. You are greatly exaggerating the case, as I said. Small shootouts like this happen with not-uncommon frequency.

[ July 29, 2004, 01:31: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

PrinzMegaherz

July 29th, 2004, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
That also doesn't fit the depiction as given by mainstream religion. Once again, such a thing is not a position to possess any sort of volition or ability to act independently, or to perform acts such as creating the universe, or consigning people to burn in hell for all eternity. Does it not? Lets take Budhism. If a soul has experienced everything there is to experience (after it has lived many lifes), it dissolves into Brahman, which is actually beginning and end of everything at once. I am not sure whether Brahman is supposed to be a sentient being. In any case, its much less prone to logical errors than our religion(in my case catholic).

Soapyfrog

July 29th, 2004, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
No, I did not. I said I attempted to aim one at such an enemy vehicle, but did not get a clean line of fire, so didn't actually fire it. I also never said that dudes on the highway were firing automatic weapons at me. They appeared to be armed with standard, semi-automatic pistols and rifles. You are greatly exaggerating the case, as I said. Small shootouts like this happen with not-uncommon frequency. Oh yeah, many's the week I've had to run and gun my way through packs of drunken welfare hoboes (who have kept themselves alive on universal medicare) armed with 38 specials and rusty kitchen knives on my way home from work.

Thank god I can sit down an play Dominions 2 to take the edge off.

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
No thanks. Why don't you post picture of YOU on top of your tank instead, in your undeground bunker? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif That would be at least *some* proof to your lunatic claims. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Even if I wanted to do such a thing, who would hold the camera?

<hr /></blockquote>ROFL. This is the lamest excuse I ever heard. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif You may take a cigar. Ever heard of auto-shoot cameras? Where you set up a few seconds timer and go "cheese"? Even cheapest soapbox cameras have it these days. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Or better just ask your parents to press a button, frankly I am starting to believe the Graeme's "stupid teenager living with his parents" Version, based upon your recent Posts.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
I am just repeating you own words silly, in case you have forgoten already. You said you used LAWS weapons to blown up cars with some unknown dudes on the highway, who were shooting at you with their automatic weapons for no apperent reason.No, I did not. I said I attempted to aim one at such an enemy vehicle, but did not get a clean line of fire, so didn't actually fire it. I also never said that dudes on the highway were firing automatic weapons at me. They appeared to be armed with standard, semi-automatic pistols and rifles. You are greatly exaggerating the case, as I said. Small shootouts like this happen with not-uncommon frequency. <hr /></blockquote>That's not how you described it. You really have to remeber your nut stories better, you know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ July 29, 2004, 03:55: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Cainehill

July 29th, 2004, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
[QUOTE]ROFL. This is the lamest excuse I ever heard. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif You may take a cigar. Ever heard of auto-shoot cameras? Where you set up a few seconds timer and go "cheese"? Even cheapest soapbox cameras have it these days. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Or better just ask your parents to press a button, frankly I am starting to believe the Graeme's "stupid teenager living with his parents" Version, based upon your recent Posts.
So, Stormwhiner - do you get wood when insulting your obsession? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
ROFL. This is the lamest excuse I ever heard. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif You may take a cigar. Ever heard of auto-shoot cameras? Where you set up a few seconds timer and go "cheese"? Even cheapest soapbox cameras have it these days. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Yes, but this still necessitates I have somebody or something *AIM* and *HOLD* the camera. They don't just hover in the air, you know.

That's not how you described it. You really have to remeber your nut stories better, you know. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Given that you never listen to anything I say anyway, it's clearly your memory that is at fault here.

Zapmeister

July 29th, 2004, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Even if there is only a .0000000001% chance that God does exist is more then enough reason to do what's right or risk burning in Hell eternally.
I couldn't resist responding to this one, since it's the exact fallacy parodied by my signature :-)

It is a mistake to apply the mathematics of probability to existential questions. In this case, that's easily demonstrated by proposing the existence of a different god (who I shall call Frank) who is the real creator of the Universe, and whose will happens to be the exact opposite of the will we attribute to Jehovah. By making up an associated scripture that is more plausible and consistent than the Bible, I could even argue that Frank's "probability of existence" exceeds Jehovah's.

So now, what do we do? Avoid the risk of offending Jehovah, or do the exact opposite to avoid offending Frank?

Fire and brimstone arguments (with or without the reference to probability) are an attempt to garner converts by intimidation, and I think that most of the successful religions have used them in some form. And of course, no more than one distinct religion can be telling the truth.

Originally posted by NTJedi:
God doesn't stop mankind from doing Evil actions such as killing, suicide or abortion, however mankind is expected to stop Evil.
Which brings up an interesting question about God's Will. Consider the following 2 Bible passages. Firstly, from Leviticus, a passage that unambiguously identifies homosexuality as a crime against God, and the penalty for said crime as death:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. - Leviticus 20:13
Secondly, from Matthew, we have Jesus telling us just as clearly that there's no wriggling out of the law of the Old Testament just because He's shown up to redeem us:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 5:17-19
So then, is killing a homosexual evil? Or is it merely implementing God's Will? Or is the Bible wrong?

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I can't think of any other analogue that would explain why a being would willfully create the universe, an object which seems to serve no particular purpose.
Not knowing anything about God's nature or environment, it's hardly surprising that we can't fathom His motivation for any particular action. That in no way implies that said motivation doesn't exist, and certainly doesn't imply that the true motivation is recognizable in terms we can understand (such as boredom).

Originally posted by Norfleet:
That also doesn't fit the depiction as given by mainstream religion.
Quite. Redefining the term "God" to mean something other than the popular conception (sentient being with an independant will, which includes the desire to be worshipped) is simply an attempt to dodge the issue of whether or not that popular conception is existant.

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
ROFL. This is the lamest excuse I ever heard. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif You may take a cigar. Ever heard of auto-shoot cameras? Where you set up a few seconds timer and go "cheese"? Even cheapest soapbox cameras have it these days. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Yes, but this still necessitates I have somebody or something *AIM* and *HOLD* the camera. They don't just hover in the air, you know.
<hr /></blockquote>Of course, I understand. I should reilize that puting the camera on the floor, and aiming it at your fictional T34 with the help of a book or two, is way too complecated for your IQ level. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif My appologies.

Jack Simth

July 29th, 2004, 06:46 AM

Either a few of the fundamental laws of physics are wrong, we are sitting at a rediculously improbable (chance n/infinity = 0) point in history, the universe doesn't exit, or God (not necessarily of any specific form) does - I even have a proof for it:

Consider: Entropy and Conservation of energy, and the universe as it seems to exist:
1) Energy is always conserved
2) Entropy always increases
3) there is both energy and order in the universe as it exists today.
4) (1) implies that the energy of the universe (using the widest, most inclusive possible definition of the universe) must be of infinite age.
Justification: energy is conserved -> the energy that is somewhere at time X must also have been somewhere at time X-1. However, as X is an arbitrary varaible, mathematical induction applies; if energy exists now, it existed at now-1, now-2, now-3, ..., all the way back to now-infinity. Thus, the energy of the universe must be of infinite age.
5) (2) and (4) imply that one of the following is true: A) after an infinite amount of time, entropy should have reached a maximum, excluding order, and thus there should be no measureable order left in the energy of the universe. B) Entropy is on some form of infinitive, and the change in entropy is only measureable for some finite segment of the infinity, which we just happen to be in.
6) as (5a) contradicts (3), it must be false if (1), (2), and (3) are true. As (5b) has a probability of some finite number over an infinite number, it has a probability of 0. Thus, (5b) must be false if (1), (2), and (3) are true. Thus there is a contradiction among (1), (2), and (3).

Given the contradiction above, one of the following must be true:
1) We are at a probability 0 section of time.
2) There is no energy in the universe (a.k.a., the universe doesn't exist).
3) One of the fundamental laws of physicis (either conservation of energy or entropy) is false.
4) Some being which can ignore the laws of physics (God) exists.

Please, discuss.

Zapmeister

July 29th, 2004, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

Consider: Entropy and Conservation of energy, and the universe as it seems to exist:
1) Energy is always conserved
2) Entropy always increases
I believe that none of the conservation laws are held to have operated at T=0 (the Big Bang)

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Given the contradiction above, one of the following must be true:
1) We are at a probability 0 section of time.
2) There is no energy in the universe (a.k.a., the universe doesn't exist).
3) One of the fundamental laws of physicis (either conservation of energy or entropy) is false.
4) Some being which can ignore the laws of physics (God) exists.I'm going to go with 3. The "fundamental laws" of physics, as it is, is simply something that we've fabricated based on empirical observation. It is, by no means, inviolate: If empirical observation in the future refutes these laws as being incomplete, as has happened in the past, we'll acquire some new understanding of how things work.

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by NTJedi:
Even if there is only a .0000000001% chance that God does exist is more then enough reason to do what's right or risk burning in Hell eternally.
I couldn't resist responding to this one, since it's the exact fallacy parodied by my signature :-)

It is a mistake to apply the mathematics of probability to existential questions. In this case, that's easily demonstrated by proposing the existence of a different god (who I shall call Frank) who is the real creator of the Universe, and whose will happens to be the exact opposite of the will we attribute to Jehovah. By making up an associated scripture that is more plausible and consistent than the Bible, I could even argue that Frank's "probability of existence" exceeds Jehovah's.

So now, what do we do? Avoid the risk of offending Jehovah, or do the exact opposite to avoid offending Frank?

<hr /></blockquote>LOL. Good argument Zap. Also it reminds me of old existential discussion that we had several mounths ago. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
Do you guys never sleep or spend your time anywhere else? Rarely.

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Of course, I understand. I should reilize that puting the camera on the floor, and aiming it at your fictional T34 with the help of a book or two, is way too complecated for your IQ level. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif My appologies. What, on the floor? Then the only thing you're going to get a picture of is my feet! Besides, what exactly would you have me *DO* with these pictures? I'm not wasting the film just so I can mail you pictures of my feet.

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Not with the @#$#@ Bush Dynasty trying to rework the USA's politics and system. The repeated elections of FDR inspired the 22nd Amendment. I wonder how long it'll take for the Bush Dynasty (Tyranny) to inspire a 28th Amendment (the anti-"hidden monarchy" amendment)? Hopefully not too long ...

spirokeat

July 29th, 2004, 08:21 AM

It is a mistake to apply the mathematics of probability to existential questions Oh, I dunno.....I mean, you can apply a 'certain' ammount of logical reasoning to man in the white robes. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Lets take a look.

Example 1....God exists

You believe in him, live a cosmically short life of devotion and moderation then recieve a cosmically long afterlife in paradise.

You dont believe in him, live a cosmically short life of debauchery and recieve a cosmically long afterlife in eternal torment.

example 2.....God doesnt exist

You believe in him, live a cosmically short life in devotion and moderation then recieve quiet oblivion.

You dont believe in him, live a cosmically short life of debauchery and then recieve quiet oblivion.

If you want the best for yourself, then we all better get praying. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Spirokeat.

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
Example 1....God exists

You believe in him, live a cosmically short life of devotion and moderation then recieve a cosmically long afterlife in paradise.Yeah, but what manner of paradise is it? From the scriptures, we know that its climate is certainly more unpleasant than Hell. Heaven, after all, receives 50 times as much light from the Sun as we get here on Earth, which gives it a temperature of 525C. Hell, on the otherhand, can be no hotter than 445C, the temperature at which the lakes of brimstone would become a gas.

You dont believe in him, live a cosmically short life of debauchery and recieve a cosmically long afterlife in eternal torment.Heaven is undoubtedly lacking in said debauchery, which seems to make it sound like a very, very, boring place. I'm sure you're not going there for the scintillating company, either.

You believe in him, live a cosmically short life in devotion and moderation then recieve quiet oblivion.Live life as a total bore, die and be banished to oblivion. Great way to live. Pass.

You dont believe in him, live a cosmically short life of debauchery and then recieve quiet oblivion.Sounds like a plan. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow, we die.

If you want the best for yourself, then we all better get praying. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif I think the winning deal seems to be to sell your soul to Satan. After all, this seems to be the sort of thing Satan theoretically happens to go for, and if you can't manage to even sell your soul to Satan, this begins to shed doubt on this entire theory. After all, you're going to Hell anyway.

spirokeat

July 29th, 2004, 09:27 AM

Compelling stuff there Norfy,

Lets add the additional premise that paradise/heaven is actualy one continual unending peaking orgasm.

Would that equate to pleasure or pain ?

Spiro.

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
I think the winning deal seems to be to sell your soul to Satan. After all, this seems to be the sort of thing Satan theoretically happens to go for, and if you can't manage to even sell your soul to Satan, this begins to shed doubt on this entire theory. After all, you're going to Hell anyway. ROTFLMAO.

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
one continual unending peaking orgasm.

Would that equate to pleasure or pain?There's no difference. It's actually torment either way.

spirokeat

July 29th, 2004, 09:52 AM

Actually thinking about it

If most sensations, pleasure, pain, touch, taste etc are generated by physical sensory receptors and transfered to the mind/soul via specific neural pathways and nerve transmitors (or animal spirits depending on archaic, you wanna get).

Then should you die but continue on as a disembodied soul, you would no longer have those receptors and thus be unable to feel anything, except abstract conceptualisations. At that point, you probably wouldnt care about god or the devil.

Unless of course, you believe in the ressurection. which is one good reason not to be christian.

Spiro

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Of course, I understand. I should reilize that puting the camera on the floor, and aiming it at your fictional T34 with the help of a book or two, is way too complecated for your IQ level. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif My appologies. What, on the floor? Then the only thing you're going to get a picture of is my feet! Besides, what exactly would you have me *DO* with these pictures? I'm not wasting the film just so I can mail you pictures of my feet. <hr /></blockquote>You are realy dumb norf. No insult, just frank observation. How about puting your camera 20 feet away? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Or 30 feet? That would be enough distance for the standard camera to show you, and several of your very own T34 tanks on top of each other. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ July 29, 2004, 09:48: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
If most sensations, pleasure, pain, touch, taste etc are generated by physical sensory receptors and transfered to the mind/soul via specific neural pathways and nerve transmitors (or animal spirits depending on archaic, you wanna get).

Then should you die but continue on as a disembodied soul, you would no longer have those receptors and thus be unable to feel anything, except abstract conceptualisations.It's worse than you think. Mood is caused & regulated by chemicals within the brain. No brain (you're a disembodied consciousness), no moods and emotions. It gets worse yet: no brain, no neurons. No neurons, no thoughts at all. Sounds like oblivion to me.

It's the fear of oblivion that causes people, even in the absence of religious teaching, to invent an afterlife, god(s), and all the associated trappings of the mystical and mythical. Humans have always feared the unknown, and what can be more unknown than oblivion? Humans also have an infinite capacity for self-deception. If you don't believe that, you've never seen a drug addict (i.e.: people in denial and unable to cope with reality), nor are you capable of enjoying a Hollywood movie (which require you to suspend disbelief, suspension of disbelief being self-deception).

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
Actually thinking about it

If most sensations, pleasure, pain, touch, taste etc are generated by physical sensory receptors and transfered to the mind/soul via specific neural pathways and nerve transmitors (or animal spirits depending on archaic, you wanna get).

Then should you die but continue on as a disembodied soul, you would no longer have those receptors and thus be unable to feel anything, except abstract conceptualisations. At that point, you probably wouldnt care about god or the devil.

Unless of course, you believe in the ressurection. which is one good reason not to be christian.

Spiro Last time I checked most signals from "physical sensory receptors" of our bodies were going directly into our brains through "neural pathways
. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But according to your logic, after death the human will lack not only receptors, but pathways and even brain itself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif At this point the question of your afterlife existense become rather moot, if you determined to operate on the same principles as during your lifetime, don't you agree? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
Lets add the additional premise that paradise/heaven is actualy one continual unending peaking orgasm.

Would that equate to pleasure or pain ?Well, it's like the saying goes: Too much of a good thing, is an awesome thing. But too much of an awesome thing, is really bad, and dumb.

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
How about puting your camera 20 feets away? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Or 30? That would be enough distanse for standart camera to have you, and several of your T34 tanks on top of each other. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif If you'd ever actually seen a T34 (or any other tank), you know that 20-30 feet isn't hardly enough distance, unless you use a ultra-wide-angle lens, which isn't common on the el-cheapo point-n-click disposable cameras someone was mentioning. Oh, and you cannot fit one inside a basement, either. Too large, especially in height.

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
If you'd ever actually seen a T34 (or any other tank), you know that 20-30 feet isn't hardly enough distance, unless you use a ultra-wide-angle lens, which isn't common on the el-cheapo point-n-click disposable cameras someone was mentioning. Oh, and you cannot fit one inside a basement, either. Too large, especially in height. Yes, well, obviously, Storm has never seen one, since he can't believe that anyone might actually come to own such a thing, not that it's a terribly monumental task for anyone with some money, given that you can BUY SUCH THINGS OFF OF THE INTERNET even now. He also has yet to address the fundamental problem of how the hell I'm supposed to focus the camera while it's lying on the ground, or get anything other than an extended shot of the floor from that position, or even how the hell I'm supposed to get this picture to him, not to mention why he should be worthy of this effort at all, given that I don't really care what a little child like him thinks.

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
Do you guys never sleep or spend your time anywhere else? Rarely. <hr /></blockquote>Yes, it's amazing how much one can accomplish thanks to the wonders of chronic insomnia. I can't imagine why anyone would want to get this cured, since you get SO much more done with your life when you can't sleep. This is why I have come to see that sleep is for weaklings.

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
since he can't believe that anyone might actually come to own such a thing, not that it's a terribly monumental task for anyone with some money, given that you can BUY SUCH THINGS OFF OF THE INTERNET even now.I suppose he'd not believe that there's a guy here in U.S., a private citizen, that owns a MiG fighter jet (or SU, I've forgotten which model he got)? And not one of the Korean-war vintage things, either. A very modern one. It was on network TV news some months ago. Of course, it's been disarmed. But it can still go supersonic, not that the FAA allows him to fly it that fast over the U.S.

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
How about puting your camera 20 feets away? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Or 30? That would be enough distanse for standart camera to have you, and several of your T34 tanks on top of each other. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif If you'd ever actually seen a T34 (or any other tank), you know that 20-30 feet isn't hardly enough distance, unless you use a ultra-wide-angle lens, which isn't common on the el-cheapo point-n-click disposable cameras someone was mentioning. Oh, and you cannot fit one inside a basement, either. Too large, especially in height. <hr /></blockquote>First - I've seen plenty of tanks, including real T34s, several different models of them in fact. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But based upon your words I am not sure you did. FYI the dimensions of T34 are 2.44m x 3.25 m (from the straigth front perspective). It not as huge as you seem to believe Arryn. In fact now that I think about it I even have the picture of me on top of T34 from about 1996 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif (but I will not claim that it was mine T34 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif )

Second - 30 feets is more than enough distance to show it. If you have any doubts just take a camera, walk 30 feets and look into it. And while you are doing it keep in mind that you can turn camera 90 degree if you like. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Third, I assume that Norf sometimes take his fictional tank outside the basement. He told us stories how he love driving it all over the place.

I could add more but I think that will be enough. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 29, 2004, 10:34: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Arryn:
If you'd ever actually seen a T34 (or any other tank), you know that 20-30 feet isn't hardly enough distance, unless you use a ultra-wide-angle lens, which isn't common on the el-cheapo point-n-click disposable cameras someone was mentioning. Oh, and you cannot fit one inside a basement, either. Too large, especially in height. Yes, well, obviously, Storm has never seen one, since he can't believe that anyone might actually come to own such a thing, not that it's a terribly monumental task for anyone with some money, given that you can BUY SUCH THINGS OFF OF THE INTERNET even now. He also has yet to address the fundamental problem of how the hell I'm supposed to focus the camera while it's lying on the ground, or get anything other than an extended shot of the floor from that position, or even how the hell I'm supposed to get this picture to him, not to mention why he should be worthy of this effort at all, given that I don't really care what a little child like him thinks. <hr /></blockquote>ROLF. Norf, unfortunately for you, I happen to be a military history buff, with particular interesst for WW2 weapons. And what more, my grand-father got a top State Award of the Soviet Union (Stalin's Premium) for designing very different oil filtering system for T34 during WW2. So please, don't tell me about T34 unless you want to show yourself even more stupid that you already did, and make me laugh harder that I am laughing as already. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

As for the rest of your photography troubles, as well as how can you make picture public, give me a break. 6 year old kid can handle such "challenging" tasks just fine.

[ July 29, 2004, 10:20: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

spirokeat

July 29th, 2004, 11:18 AM

posted by Arynn

It gets worse yet: no brain, no neurons. No neurons, no thoughts at all. Sounds like oblivion to me.

 posted by stormbinder
But according to your logic, after death the human will lack not only receptors, but pathways and even brain itself. At this point the question of your afterlife existense become rather moot Filthy Monists ! and material ones at that !

spirokeat

July 29th, 2004, 11:24 AM

To be fair to Norfleet Storm

How can we be sure that he didnt lose limbs and or mobility in the war, perhaps he only has one eye and thus no depth perception. Perhaps he is in fact, sat on a velvet cushion with a dialing wand clutched in his teeth, tapping away at the keyboard.

Thus compounding the difficulty of taking a photo to new levels. Heck, he would have enough problems just getting to the store to buy a cheap *** camera, never mind the mountainous task of getting his T34 out of the garage, into the drive, camera 30 ft away, focussed, timer set, then Hop Hop Hop ! back over the drive, up onto the T34 and into a vogue type pose. hop Hop off, back to the camera before some savage steals it, T34 back in the garage, Hop Hop Hop ! over to the developers....etc etc etc...you see where I'm going with his ?

Problematical is all I can say.

Spiro

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Norfleet:
since he can't believe that anyone might actually come to own such a thing, not that it's a terribly monumental task for anyone with some money, given that you can BUY SUCH THINGS OFF OF THE INTERNET even now.I suppose he'd not believe that there's a guy here in U.S., a private citizen, that owns a MiG fighter jet (or SU, I've forgotten which model he got)? And not one of the Korean-war vintage things, either. A very modern one. It was on network TV news some months ago. Of course, it's been disarmed. But it can still go supersonic, not that the FAA allows him to fly it that fast over the U.S. <hr /></blockquote>Perhaps the guy's name was Larry Ellison? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif He happened to be the CEQ of Oracle, I've worked in his company for 2 years. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif And of course I know that you can have such artifacts here in the USA. (as well as in other countries btw). It just that I don't believe Norfleet has anything to do with it, since as Graeme said his fictional character belong to mad max type of movies, not to the real world. But if you prefer to believe all his crazy stories that he keep telling about himself, that's your choice.

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
To be fair to Norfleet Storm

How can we be sure that he didnt lose limbs and or mobility in the war, perhaps he only has one eye and thus no depth perception. Perhaps he is in fact, sat on a velvet cushion with a dialing wand clutched in his teeth, tapping away at the keyboard.

Thus compounding the difficulty of taking a photo to new levels. Heck, he would have enough problems just getting to the store to buy a cheap *** camera, never mind the mountainous task of getting his T34 out of the garage, into the drive, camera 30 ft away, focussed, timer set, then Hop Hop Hop ! back over the drive, up onto the T34 and into a vogue type pose. hop Hop off, back to the camera before some savage steals it, T34 back in the garage, Hop Hop Hop ! over to the developers....etc etc etc...you see where I'm going with his ?

Problematical is all I can say.

Spiro ROFLOL!

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

The picture that you have described brought tears to my eyes Spiro. I see your point clearly. Life can be indeed tough to poor old norf, when you put it this way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

/walks away sobing/

[ July 29, 2004, 10:40: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

spirokeat

July 29th, 2004, 11:38 AM

posted by Stormbinder
But if you prefer to believe all his crazy stories that he keep telling about himself, that's your choice But surely if we accept that people somewhere do own vehicles of that nature albeit decomissioned ones, then what difference does it make if Norfleet has one or not?. Its not like hes trying to park it on your lawn ?

I propose, neither believing nor disbelieving and am quite sure I will have forgotten about this conversation in the next week or two, thus making ownership or non ownership moot. And if I have forgotten about it, well its tantamount to not having had it in the first place.

Spiro.

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
FYI the dimensions of T34 are 2.44m x 3.25 m (from the straigth front perspective). It not clearly as huge as you seem to believe Arryn.T34/76 is 2.4m (h), 3m (w), 6.1m (l). T34/85 is 2.7m (h), 3m (w), 8.15m (l). IOW, it's as tall as the average home's interior ceiling height, 1.5 times as wide as a Chevy Suburban, and 20-60% longer. And by today's standards, it's a small tank. But still a large object to frame in the viewfinder. (One of my hobbies is photography/astrophotography, so I'm quite familiar with taking pictures, and I've probably been doing it since before you were born).

BTW, I've not only seen tanks, I've driven one (the M1A1, as well as the old M113 APC).

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />posted by Arynn

It gets worse yet: no brain, no neurons. No neurons, no thoughts at all. Sounds like oblivion to me.

 posted by stormbinder
But according to your logic, after death the human will lack not only receptors, but pathways and even brain itself. At this point the question of your afterlife existense become rather moot Filthy Monists ! and material ones at that ! <hr /></blockquote>Heh, Arryn had beat me by few minutes to it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Aye, it is materialist position indeed, got to admit it. But you have walked this road first with your neurological pathways, I just could not resist... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
ROLF. Norf, unfortunately for you, I happen to be a military history buff, with particular interesst for WW2 weapons. And what more, my grand-father got a top State Award of the Soviet Union (Stalin's Premium) for designing very different oil filtering system for T34 during WW2. So please, don't tell me about T34 unless you want to show yourself even more stupid that you already did, and make me laugh harder that I am laughing as already. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif *golf claps*

Bravo. Good for you. As you can see, it's not too hard to get to one.

[ July 29, 2004, 10:49: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
FYI the dimensions of T34 are 2.44m x 3.25 m (from the straigth front perspective). It not clearly as huge as you seem to believe Arryn.T34/76 is 2.4m (h), 3m (w), 6.1m (l). T34/85 is 2.7m (h), 3m (w), 8.15m (l). IOW, it's as tall as the average home's interior ceiling height, 1.5 times as wide as a Chevy Suburban, and 20-60% longer. And by today's standards, it's a small tank. But still a large object to frame in the viewfinder. (One of my hobbies is photography/astrophotography, so I'm quite familiar with taking pictures

<hr /></blockquote>Than we both share the photography hobby Arryn. Are you saying that you can not frame object 2.4m x 3m from 30 feets on standart camera with regular-angle lenses??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
it is materialist position indeed, got to admit it.No, it is a position derived from cold hard logic. The sort of thing you'd get if you fed the facts into an appropriate (and hopefully bug-free) computer program (or a Vulcan from Star Trek) and asked the program for an evaluation and conclusion. There is no credible evidence that thoughts (and thus existence) are independent of the physical human body. Mildly put, it's wishful thinking to believe otherwise. Bluntly put, it's delusional to believe otherwise.

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
it is materialist position indeed, got to admit it.No, it is a position derived from cold hard logic. The sort of thing you'd get if you fed the facts into an appropriate (and hopefully bug-free) computer program (or a Vulcan from Star Trek) and asked the program for an evaluation and conclusion. There is no credible evidence that thoughts (and thus existence) are independent of the physical human body. Mildly put, it's wishful thinking to believe otherwise. Bluntly put, it's delusional to believe otherwise. <hr /></blockquote>I am not arguing with that Arryn. The cold hard logic is very materialistic. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And there is nothing wrong with being materialist, I was just playing along with Spike. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

As for my personal believes, I can say that I am more or less agnostic, if I have to put a label on myself.

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Are you saying that you can not frame object 2.4m x 3m from 30 feets on standart camera with regular-angle lenses??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif On further thought, yes you can. You can probably even get the side aspect of the tank in the frame, and not just the front aspect, from 30' away. 30' is pretty far. If I remembered my high school trignometry from 29 years ago better than I do, I could tell you for sure.

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
As for my personal believes, I can say that I am more or less agnostic, if I have to put a label on myself. Okay. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Then try the following:

The notion that some all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal entity capable of existing outside the laws of the universe would actually deign to care about something as insignificant as humans is arrogance and conceit on the part of such believers.

spirokeat

July 29th, 2004, 12:13 PM

Posted by Arryn the Monist, Functionalist Materialist

No, it is a position derived from cold hard logic. The sort of thing you'd get if you fed the facts into an appropriate (and hopefully bug-free) computer program (or a Vulcan from Star Trek) and asked the program for an evaluation and conclusion. There is no credible evidence that thoughts (and thus existence) are independent of the physical human body. Mildly put, it's wishful thinking to believe otherwise. Bluntly put, it's delusional to believe otherwise.
Materialism albeit compelling still has many difficulties. May I assume by your logic that you are a hard aethiest ?

And my suggestion that sensory input is causal to sensations like pain etc is quite congenial with both dualism and monist spiritualism.

And storm ! its Spirokeat ! as in a mispelling of that critter you get with limes disease. ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Norfleet:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
ROLF. Norf, unfortunately for you, I happen to be a military history buff, with particular interesst for WW2 weapons. And what more, my grand-father got a top State Award of the Soviet Union (Stalin's Premium) for designing very different oil filtering system for T34 during WW2. So please, don't tell me about T34 unless you want to show yourself even more stupid that you already did, and make me laugh harder that I am laughing as already. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif *golf claps*

Bravo. Good for you. As you can see, it's not too hard to get to one. <hr /></blockquote>LOL. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif The point is that you don't have one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif You don't even know how big or how small it is, as you just clearly demonstrated. It is just another delusional story that you mumble about, since you think that it fits your "tough" fictional character, if he would be driving around on very own T34. Along the lines of your other stories, like attacking people with LAWS, booby traping your garage with deadly explosives, being shot by misitrious assasins, hiding in nuclear shelter for the Last several years, et cetera... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

spirokeat

July 29th, 2004, 12:18 PM

The notion that some all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal entity capable of existing outside the laws of the universe would actually deign to care about something as insignificant as humans is arrogance and conceit on the part of such believers.

To accept that something is omnipotent and omniscient means that unless they explode themselves with logical immpossibilities (big bang maybe??) they know everything and can do everything and could likely place equal consideration to every single atom in the universe with no limit on his unlimited resources.

Spiro

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
Posted by Arryn the Monist, Functionalist Materialist

May I assume by your logic that you are a hard aethiest ?No, you may not. Nor do I take kindly to the tagline you've ascribed to me.

And storm ! its Spirokeat ! as in a mispelling of that critter you get with limes disease. ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I prefer "Spike", also.

-- Arryn the agnostic and skeptic

Zapmeister

July 29th, 2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
The notion that some all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal entity capable of existing outside the laws of the universe would actually deign to care about something as insignificant as humans is arrogance and conceit on the part of such believers. Hmmm. How about the notion that any insignificant human could accurately discern what an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal entity would or would not deign to care about?

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
To accept that something is omnipotent and omniscient means that unless they explode themselves with logical immpossibilitiesOmniscience and omnipotence is a logical impossibility in itself. If you haven't studied philosophy (and physics), you might try doing so.

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
Hmmm. How about the notion that any insignificant human could accurately discern what an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal entity would or would not deign to care about? Touche! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

spirokeat

July 29th, 2004, 12:27 PM

Arryn the agnostic and skeptic Surely as a skeptic you would be first in the house to put forward possibilities of how something could be outside the boundries of a prescribed theory ?

And as for the 'spike' thing, bah. If i accept the theory that your all just ideas generated by my mind and when I stop thinking about you then you cease to exist till i start again, without god to be thinking about you constantly then 'ole whitebeard' doesnt seem like a bad concept. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Spiro.

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Are you saying that you can not frame object 2.4m x 3m from 30 feets on standart camera with regular-angle lenses??? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif On further thought, yes you can. You can probably even get the side aspect of the tank in the frame, and not just the front aspect, from 30' away. 30' is pretty far. If I remembered my high school trignometry from 29 years ago better than I do, I could tell you for sure. <hr /></blockquote>Good. Now you are talking. And yes, I think you are correct and you could indeed fit the length of the tank, or at least large part of it (8.1m). But with 2.4m and 3m frontal shoot you would have no problem whatsoever, even if norf would put his non-existent T34 tanks on top of each other. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 29, 2004, 11:35: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by spirokeat:

And storm ! its Spirokeat ! as in a mispelling of that critter you get with limes disease. ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Point taken. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

All right, I am off for today. See you guys later.

[ July 29, 2004, 11:37: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

spirokeat

July 29th, 2004, 12:31 PM

Im studying philosophy right now, though not physics of course. I have not yet come accross an arguement for omnipotence or omniscience to be logically impossible and thats not to say, Ive read it all and its not there, I just havent come accross it.

Though my next area of study is indeed faith, destiny and purpose, maybe it will show itself.

Spiro.

Zapmeister

July 29th, 2004, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
I have not yet come accross an arguement for omnipotence or omniscience to be logically impossible
I'm on thin ice here, but I do think Arryn's right, in that if you regard omniscience as perpetual awareness and knowledge of the future then there's a real problem with God holding us accountable and punishable for the sins He has always known we're going to commit.

I took a Jehovah's Witness to task on the issue once, and he responded that in his view, God's power to know the future is a power that He rarely chooses to exercise. In other words, while He could know the future, He usually chooses not to. I don't buy it myself, but who's to say it aint so?

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Arryn the agnostic and skeptic Surely as a skeptic you would be first in the house to put forward possibilities of how something could be outside the boundries of a prescribed theory ?

And as for the 'spike' thing, bah. If i accept the theory that your all just ideas generated by my mind and when I stop thinking about you then you cease to exist till i start again, without god to be thinking about you constantly then 'ole whitebeard' doesnt seem like a bad concept. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif

Spiro. <hr /></blockquote>This scenario is highly unlikely, but just in case... KEEP THINKING!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Or perhaps you are the Moth, sleeping in the flower, who is dreaming that he is Spirokeat, and dreaming this whole world and its inhabitants who exist only as part of that dream.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

As for the omnipotence - there is a cenuries-old paradox coming all the way from the Dark Ages IIRC, about God and the stone. Translating it in the modern Version that I, as software engineer, like more: If the God exist and omnipotent, than can He write chess program AI, which would be so good that it could beat even its creator?

(Obviosly the paradox part is that if He can't, than he is not omnopotenet, and if He can, than he is not omnipotent as well http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Now I am really off to bed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 29, 2004, 11:55: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

spirokeat

July 29th, 2004, 12:59 PM

As for the omnipotence - there is a cenuries-old paradox coming all the way from the Dark Ages IIRC, about God and the stone. Translating it in the modern Version that I, as software engineer, like more: If the God exist and omnipotent, than can He write chess program AI, which would be so good that it could beat even its creator?

(Obviosly the paradox part is that if He can't, than he is not omnopotenet, and if He can, than he is not omnipotent as well )

Cackle, I like that. Im going to attempt to beat my tutor round the head with it.

And sleep tight you guys on the twilight side of the globe, been fun debating stuff all morning.

Spirokeat.

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
As for the omnipotence - there is a cenuries-old paradox coming all the way from the Dark Ages IIRC, about God and the stone."Could God create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it." is the original paradox.

I have never heard a satisfactory resolution of this paradox by Christian theologians. It's one of those "inconvenient" things they like to sweep under the rug and hope people won't notice.

Cainehill

July 29th, 2004, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
You are realy dumb norf. No insult, just frank observation. How about puting your camera 20 feet away? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif Or 30 feet? That would be enough distance for the standard camera to show you, and several of your very own T34 tanks on top of each other. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Are you really that desperate for fantasy fodder? I mean, now you have an obsession with having a picture of Norfleet for some perverted reason.

After all - a photo does, and proves, nothing. Unless you already know what Norfleet looks like (hint - he probably doesn't look like his avatar), in which case you're more obsessed than even I thought, given that you've managed to hunt down photos of him.

Even with that - photographs are easily doctored. Any idiot (and probably even you) can find a photo of an old tank in a book, the library, or (gasp) the internet, and digitally alter it to put in a acne-covered teenager - oops, that'd be you, I mean, a bearded old coot.

Heck - no need to alter it unless you do have Norfleet's picture on the ceiling above your bed, because he could find a picture of _some_ oldish coot beside an old tank and provide it, and you'd never know the difference.

Flooding perverted idiot.

Jack Simth

July 29th, 2004, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
No, it is a position derived from cold hard logic. The sort of thing you'd get if you fed the facts into an appropriate (and hopefully bug-free) computer program (or a Vulcan from Star Trek) and asked the program for an evaluation and conclusion. There is no credible evidence that thoughts (and thus existence) are independent of the physical human body. Mildly put, it's wishful thinking to believe otherwise. Bluntly put, it's delusional to believe otherwise. The same program, fed the facts about conservation of energy and entropy, would also conclude that the existance of the universe as observed is either a fundamental impossiblity or of probability 0 in light of those facts. And yet, there is no credible evidence of any of: "conservation of energy is avoidable", "entropy can decrease in a closed system", or "the universe doesn't exist". Pardon me if I don't trust your logic.

Jack Simth

July 29th, 2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
If they were suffering from mass delusion, then logically so are all believers today. And if today's believers aren't delusional, then by corollary, neither were the ancient Greeks, and thus modern Judeo-Christian-Islam is wrong and there are many gods.Could you expound on the specifics of the "logically" you are using? To the best of my knoweledge, two Groups believing opposing things about a single thing necessitates neither both being equally right nor both being equally wrong.

Soapyfrog

July 29th, 2004, 02:22 PM

I snuck into the backwoods of Montana and onto the Norfleet estate, decoying the free roaming attack dogs with pork chops swathed in peanut butter, and, after a long arduous stealthy approach, managed to snap a picture of Norfleet's T34:

http://www.soapyfrog.net/images/t34.jpg

Nice ride!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ July 29, 2004, 14:12: Message edited by: Soapyfrog ]

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
The same program, fed the facts about conservation of energy and entropy, would also conclude that the existance of the universe as observed is either a fundamental impossiblity or of probability 0 in light of those facts.You have an unastounding degree of ignorance about physics and cosmology. Get some education before you attempt to argue the topic.

-- Arryn, who majored in astrophysics

Jack Simth

July 29th, 2004, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
You have an unastounding degree of ignorance about physics and cosmology. Get some education before you attempt to argue the topic.

-- Arryn, who majored in astrophysics Rather than just giving an insult, could you instead answer a simple question: which resaonably proven theory is it that either permits energy to come from nowhere or permits order in energy to be reclaimed without dumping disorder into other energy?

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
which resaonably proven theory is it that either permits energy to come from nowhere or permits order in energy to be reclaimed without dumping disorder into other energy? Perhaps if you explain what you mean by "energy coming from nowhere", I might understand whether you understand the topic.

Jack Simth

July 29th, 2004, 02:54 PM

When I say "energy coming from nowhere" I mean energy that has no source, no past; the true creation of energy. Energy that comes from an unobservable location still comes from somewhere - the unobserveable location. The extra dimensions of string theory allow for the "creation" of energy - but only in that no source was observeable due to 3- (or 4-, depending on how you look at it)-d observations in a supposed 11-d universe; however, that energy still came from somewhere even though that somewhere was neither observed nor observeable.

Sufficent?

atul

July 29th, 2004, 03:04 PM

Hopping in the conversation out of nowhere,

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Rather than just giving an insult, could you instead answer a simple question: which resaonably proven theory is it that either permits energy to come from nowhere or permits order in energy to be reclaimed without dumping disorder into other energy? Please don't get upset if someone whose education is centered around physics gets a bit frustrated at that kind of questions. The thing being, along with philosophy, physics is one of the most vocally misunderstood sciences. (Last summer I had the joy of following a news conversation where this guy was absolutely sure about world being 6000-year old etc since in a closed system entropy would increase and earth was such a system. Ergo creation etc. Doh)

Boundary conditions. Current laws of physics, as we now formulate them, aren't valid in certain places, such as Big Bang or event horizon. So if you ask what's beoynd them, the answer would be along the lines "Don't know". That doesn't invalidate current theories, just puts limits to where you can use them. (like, Newtonian versus relativistic physics)

And btw, as I've understood it, the stuff commonly called laws of physics are just (mathematical) representation of what we can observe. To call it a true thing would go in the realm of religion, not science. If it turned out that all the forces are actually created by invisible elves the physics, as we practise it, wouldn't change as long as it could be assured that said elves were consistent in their actions. Only the interpretation.

And I'm sure this post is filled with mistakes also. Otoh, I'm just majoring in physics, not too much can be expected. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
When I say "energy coming from nowhere" I mean energy that has no source, no past; the true creation of energy. Energy that comes from an unobservable location still comes from somewhere - the unobserveable location. The extra dimensions of string theory allow for the "creation" of energy - but only in that no source was observeable due to 3- (or 4-, depending on how you look at it)-d observations in a supposed 11-d universe; however, that energy still came from somewhere even though that somewhere was neither observed nor observeable.

Sufficent? Sufficient? Yes and no. You've now defined "energy coming from nowhere". Next, a definition of "reasonably proven" would help. Except that it's moot because there are no "reasonably proven" theories of cosmology, and those that we have all state you cannot have "energy coming from nowhere" as you've defined it. (The old "Steady State" theory is quite dead.) BTW, the closest thing to "reasonably proven" theories in all of physics are Einstein's General and Special theories, and the jury is still out on his General. I expect we'll see it superseded within my lifetime, as Newton's was superseded by Einstein's. (Newton's isn't wrong, just incomplete. And I don't think Einstein's is complete either.)

I suspect you bring this up because you have a supposition that you wish to cite. Please do so.

spirokeat

July 29th, 2004, 03:11 PM

Arry,

Im not so sure you can use occams razor on the existence of god, in many situations he IS the most simple solution or reason for the apparent illogical existence of the universe as it is.

However, you seem to be getting quite heated in a situation where certainly I am only playing around with some cenceptual theories and most assuredly dont have a knock-down answer to the greater questions that plague philosophy and mankind.

So, that said, I'll bow out of this conversation. Good talking all. Seeya on the next thread.

Spiro.

Cainehill

July 29th, 2004, 03:11 PM

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by atul:
And I'm sure this post is filled with mistakes also. Otoh, I'm just majoring in physics, not too much can be expected. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif You did fine. You seem to have a good grasp of the concepts. Congrats.

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
Im not so sure you can use occams razor on the existence of god, in many situations he IS the most simple solution or reason for the apparent illogical existence of the universe as it is.Postulating omniscient & omnipotent beings is NOT an Occam solution. The Occam solution to the universe appearing "illogical" is: human ignorance.

Human's once thought (and some still do) that various gods caused rain, sunshine, volcanoes, etc. Classic examples of ignorance.

Jack Simth

July 29th, 2004, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by atul:
Boundary conditions. Current laws of physics, as we now formulate them, aren't valid in certain places, such as Big Bang or event horizon. So if you ask what's beoynd them, the answer would be along the lines "Don't know". That doesn't invalidate current theories, just puts limits to where you can use them. (like, Newtonian versus relativistic physics)The event horizon of a black hole, as far as anyone can tell, anyway, doesn't do anything important to either entropy or conservation of energy; when mass or energy goes over the event horizon of a black hole, it increases the mass of the black hole accordingly. Current theory (I'm using the term loosely, I know) has it that black holes slowly evaporate into radiation - at a net increase in entropy. Newtonian and relativistic physics both support conservation of energy - to the point where relativity actually relies on the conservation of energy to do many of it's transitions in coming up with the theory, although it had to change the definition of energy to make everything work. Historically, every time someone has thought they have come up with a way around either, it has been an issue of a new form of energy, a mistake/contamination somewhere along the line, or a hoax. Those two principals are as proven as anything gets in physics, boundaries or no. I've yet to hear of any credible scientific hypothesis that would truly violate either without referring to God in some form.

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by atul:
Boundary conditions. Current laws of physics, as we now formulate them, aren't valid in certain places, such as Big Bang or event horizon.Sorry, I overlooked a mistake you made. The are no unusual physics involved with the "event horizon" of a black hole. It is simply a mathematical region where matter inside that radius must travel faster than the speed of light if it were to escape to the other side of the "dividing line". The center of a black hole (a singularity in some theories) and the singularity of the Big Bang (again, in certain theories) is where the laws of physics (as we presently understand them) break down. IOW, you get mathematical infinities as solutions to equations.

BTW, there is a current theory, not particularly well-known by most people, that postulates that a black hole does not contain a singularity, and that some rather exotic stuff lies within the event horizon.

EDIT: typo

[ July 29, 2004, 14:44: Message edited by: Arryn ]

Jack Simth

July 29th, 2004, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
Sufficient? Yes and no. You've now defined "energy coming from nowhere". Next, a definition of "reasonably proven" would help. Except that it's moot because there are no "reasonably proven" theories of cosmology, and those that we have all state you cannot have "energy coming from nowhere" as you've defined it. (The old "Steady State" theory is quite dead.) BTW, the closest thing to "reasonably proven" theories in all of physics are Einstein's General and Special theories, and the jury is still out on his General. I expect we'll see it superseded within my lifetime, as Newton's was superseded by Einstein's. (Newton's isn't wrong, just incomplete. And I don't think Einstein's is complete either.)
The definition of "reasonably proven" I'm using for this debate is looser than you seem to be wanting to use - any theory that has carried through on a reasonable number of tests will suffice for these purposes. Originally posted by Arryn:

I suspect you bring this up because you have a supposition that you wish to cite. Please do so. I can repost the conclusion of my proof from earlier (a one of four must be true) if you like, but mostly my supposition is that you can't logically refute the existance of Him as readily as you appear to think you can.

Jack Simth

July 29th, 2004, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Perhaps you can explain, since you say energy can't come from nowhere - where did Dog come from? Is God not energy, if he exists? If Dog can come from nowhere, so can energy. So can free beer and the tooth fairy.

And unlike God - I've seen evidence of free beer and the tooth fairy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif If you go back and read the proof I posted earlier, you might note that the only required property of God (as one possiblity of 4) I had listed was:
Some being which can ignore the laws of physics- in which case, origins need not apply, and your question is rather moot.

Jack Simth

July 29th, 2004, 03:52 PM

This apparently got lost in the shuffle, so I'm bringing it back to the top for a moment.
Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Arryn:
If they were suffering from mass delusion, then logically so are all believers today. And if today's believers aren't delusional, then by corollary, neither were the ancient Greeks, and thus modern Judeo-Christian-Islam is wrong and there are many gods.Could you expound on the specifics of the "logically" you are using? To the best of my knoweledge, two Groups believing opposing things about a single thing necessitates neither both being equally right nor both being equally wrong. <hr /></blockquote>

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
The definition of "reasonably proven" I'm using for this debate is looser than you seem to be wanting to use - any theory that has carried through on a reasonable number of tests will suffice for these purposes.The more extravagant the claim, the more rigid must the proof be. If I claim to have a degree from MIT (I don't), you might believe me. If I claim to have seen a UFO, I'd be asked to provide photos. If I claimed to have been abducted by ETs and that they did experiments on me, I'd have to (at the very least) show that I had been missing and show physical evidence on my body of having been 'probed'. If I claimed to *be* an ET, you can be assured that I'm going to be rather thoroughly examined -- by a psychiatrist if the physicians find nothing.

I can repost the conclusion of my proof from earlier (a one of four must be true) if you like, but mostly my supposition is that you can't logically refute the existance of Him as readily as you appear to think you can. As Zap pointed out, the (current) laws of entropy *begin* at time=0 (the bang). The laws do not apply, do not exist prior to that point. And time also begins at that point. There is no such thing as "big bang minus 3 days". Time has no mathematical meaning before the "bang". Ergo, the universe is not infinitely old. (And it does not have infinite energy either, even if it was infinitely old.)

Your whole "proof" falls apart because it is based on bad assumptions and outright ignorance of cosmological physics.

BTW, had your assumptions been correct, the proof would still have failed because you did not rigorously derive God from the presented facts. You jumped to a conclusion.

It'd be the same thing as saying "I see an object in the sky I cannot identify, so it must be a Russian bomber". It *could* be a Russian bomber, but it doesn't *have* to be one. It could be almost anything.

Ignorance of reality != proof of God. QED

atul

July 29th, 2004, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
Sorry, I overlooked a mistake you made. The are no unusual physics involved with the "event horizon" of a black hole. It is simply a mathematical region where matter inside that radius must travel faster than the speed of light if it were to escape to the other side of the "dividing line". The center of a black hole (a singularity in some theories) and the singularity of the Big Bang (again, in certain theories) is where the laws of physics (as we presently understand them) break down.Hm, it hasn't ever been quite clear to me what's the stuff with the black holes anyway, so thanks for the clarification. Okay, not the edge, the center. The discussion goes far too theoretical for us little engineering physicists... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Anyone else noted that the original topic has gained some heat (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,64376,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1) on itself also, by the way?

Jack Simth

July 29th, 2004, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Arryn:
The more extravagant the claim, the more rigid must the proof be. If I claim to have a degree from MIT (I don't), you might believe me. If I claim to have seen a UFO, I'd be asked to provide photos. If I claimed to have been abducted by ETs and that they did experiments on me, I'd have to (at the very least) show that I had been missing and show physical evidence on my body of having been 'probed'. If I claimed to *be* an ET, you can be assured that I'm going to be rather thoroughly examined -- by a psychiatrist if the physicians find nothing.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I can repost the conclusion of my proof from earlier (a one of four must be true) if you like, but mostly my supposition is that you can't logically refute the existance of Him as readily as you appear to think you can. As Zap pointed out, the (current) laws of entropy *begin* at time=0 (the bang). The laws do not apply, do not exist prior to that point. And time also begins at that point. There is no such thing as "big bang minus 3 days". Time has no mathematical meaning before the "bang". Ergo, the universe is not infinitely old.<hr /></blockquote>It is a very extravagant claim to say that the laws of physics do not apply past a certain point. Do you have any proof of this? Any reliable, citeable observations of a case where physicis were suspended? Originally posted by Arryn:
(And it does not have infinite energy either, even if it was infinitely old.)
Where did I say the universe had infinite energy? Originally posted by Arryn:

Your whole "proof" falls apart because it is based on bad assumptions and outright ignorance of cosmological physics.

BTW, had your assumptions been correct, the proof would still have failed because you did not rigorously derive God from the presented facts. You jumped to a conclusion.

It'd be the same thing as saying "I see an object in the sky I cannot identify, so it must be a Russian bomber". It *could* be a Russian bomber, but it doesn't *have* to be one. It could be almost anything.

Ignorance of reality != proof of God. QED Apparently you didn't read the logic closely - I did not jump to the conclusion that God exists; I went to "...one of the following must be true..." and you seem to have assumed a conclusion of a specific one of those four / all of those four. This one of your counter-arguments falls apart on the basis that you are not arguing against my specific arguments. Shucks, I'd even mentioned in the section you quote (i've just now added italics to that specific piece of where I quoted you quoting me - it wasn't italicized in the original) that only one of the four need be true, with no reference as to which one.

Seeing as how you clearly aren't reading my Posts very carefully, there isn't much point in further discussion, is there?

Edit: fixed a grammer mistake

[ July 29, 2004, 16:04: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by atul:
Anyone else noted that the original topic has gained some heat (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,64376,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1) on itself also, by the way? I'm not a lawyer (though I might occasionally play-act as one around here), but to my understanding of copyright law, Woody's statement quoted in the article's Last paragraph on page 2 should invalidate any attempt to enforce the copyright by the new copyright holder. Woody, in effect, says "the song is mine, I'm claiming credit for it, but the use of the song is in the public domain". Of course, our legal system favors those with money and power over the rights of the public at large, so despite what I think is a clear-cut issue, I have little doubt some moron of a judge will rule against Jibjab and in favor of the anal-retentive music company.

EDIT: typo

[ July 29, 2004, 16:25: Message edited by: Arryn ]

Norfleet

July 29th, 2004, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
LOL. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif The point is that you don't have one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif You don't even know how big or how small it is, as you just clearly demonstrated.And where, exactly, did I say I didn't know how big or small it is? I never claimed to know much about photography, sure. As far as I'm concerned, I point, aim, and shoot. I do know that it would seem unreasonably difficult to try and focus a camera that is sitting on the floor, given that I'd have to pick it up and look through it to do so, which would change its position, thus undermining the point of the exercise.

And man, this thread just goes all OVER the place.

[ July 29, 2004, 18:33: Message edited by: Norfleet ]

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Soapyfrog:
I snuck into the backwoods of Montana and onto the Norfleet estate, decoying the free roaming attack dogs with pork chops swathed in peanut butter, and, after a long arduous stealthy approach, managed to snap a picture of Norfleet's T34:

http://www.soapyfrog.net/images/t34.jpg

Nice ride!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif LOL. This tank could surely fool me. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Soapyfrog, watch for the booby traps, minefields and sniper rifles, that Norf remotely controls from the secret lair in his nuclear shelter. Geting in is one thing. Geting out may prove to be even harder. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif You see, once the word gets out that norf don't really have tank, THEY , who are out there to get poor old norf, will grow bolder. He can't afford it to happen, so watch your back. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 29, 2004, 19:59: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
You are realy dumb norf. No insult, just frank observation. How about puting your camera 20 feet away? Or 30 feet? That would be enough distance for the standard camera to show you, and several of your very own T34 tanks on top of each other. Are you really that desperate for fantasy fodder? I mean, now you have an obsession with having a picture of Norfleet for some perverted reason.

After all - a photo does, and proves, nothing. Unless you already know what Norfleet looks like (hint - he probably doesn't look like his avatar), in which case you're more obsessed than even I thought, given that you've managed to hunt down photos of him.

Even with that - photographs are easily doctored. Any idiot (and probably even you) can find a photo of an old tank in a book, the library, or (gasp) the internet, and digitally alter it to put in a acne-covered teenager - oops, that'd be you, I mean, a bearded old coot.

Heck - no need to alter it unless you do have Norfleet's picture on the ceiling above your bed, because he could find a picture of _some_ oldish coot beside an old tank and provide it, and you'd never know the difference.

Flooding perverted idiot. <hr /></blockquote>I wouldn't go so far as calling your pervented idiot Cain, but since you said so yourslef I have no choice to agree with you, since your letter prove it quite clearly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Man, please, your homosexual fantasties regarding Norfleet hold no interest to me, although they certanly explain why you are the only person in the entire forum defending him. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Maybe you shold try personal love letters next time, huh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Forum is kindof tough medium for expressing your tender feeling my friend. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

As for the pictures and tanks - c'mon, I expected you to be at least a little smarter than norf. Was I wrong? Sorry dude, I don't want to rain on your parade, but can't you think of very simple way to prove that these pictures are norfleet's, and not some random person from the internet?!? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif If you can't, I can give you a hint, but I knidof hope you will be able to figure it out yourslef, it's not hard, really. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

And friendly advice - next time before hoping on your favorite horse and raiding to rescue the love of your life, try to think a little bit before you write, otherwise you will look very stupid, like you do now, when you couldn't even think of simple way to profe autenticity of the photo, when any 8 year old kid with average IQ could quickly come up with logical solution for this mindbogling problem. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Regards,
Stormbinder

[ July 29, 2004, 19:57: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Cainehill

July 29th, 2004, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cainehill:
Perhaps you can explain, since you say energy can't come from nowhere - where did Dog come from? Is God not energy, if he exists? If Dog can come from nowhere, so can energy. So can free beer and the tooth fairy.

And unlike God - I've seen evidence of free beer and the tooth fairy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif If you go back and read the proof I posted earlier, you might note that the only required property of God (as one possiblity of 4) I had listed was:
Some being which can ignore the laws of physics- in which case, origins need not apply, and your question is rather moot. <hr /></blockquote>If one being can ignore the laws of physics - they aren't laws. If one being can break the laws - other beings, entities, energies, and objects can.

Cainehill

July 29th, 2004, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Stormbinder:
And friendly advice - next time before hoping on your favorite horse and raiding to rescue the love of your life, try to think a little bit before you write, otherwise you will look very stupid, like you do now, when you couldn't even think of simple way to profe autenticity of the photo, when any 8 year old kid with average IQ could quickly come up with logical solution for this mindbogling problem.Stormie, sweet girl - I'm guessing you're the 8 year old kid who thinks she has an average IQ? Just to remind you, it took _weeks_ to debunk some of the faked photos from 9/11. It took a team of historians to prove that Stalin had been rewriting history by redoing famous photographs - and that was long before the digital age.

"But we can have a current newspaper in the photo!" Yes, sweetling, and the newspaper image can be imposed in the photograph, just as modern cereals and soft drinks are being inserted into vintage television shows and images.

Not to mention that the current newspaper still wouldn't prove that the man in the photograph was Norfleet. But here's a lollipop for a nice try, kid. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And by the by, Stormie - defending one person isn't the same as attacking another. But as someone reminded me that it's "Be kind to the differently enabled week", I'm not going to attack you today. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Cainehill

July 29th, 2004, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Apparently you didn't read the logic closely - I did not jump to the conclusion that God exists; I went to "...one of the following must be true..." and you seem to have assumed a conclusion of a specific one of those four / all of those four. This one of your counter-arguments falls apart on the basis that you are not arguing against my specific arguments. Shucks, I'd even mentioned in the section you quote (i've just now added italics to that specific piece of where I quoted you quoting me - it wasn't italicized in the original) that only one of the four need be true, with no reference as to which one.
Since you like "At least / only one of these four need be true" games, here's one for you.

#1 : God is a sadist, given the way the world is.
#2 : God isn't a sadist, but isn't omnipotent either, or the world wouldn't be the way it is.
#3 : God isn't a sadist, he is omnipotent, but he forgot about us and thus the world went to ****.
#4 : God isn't a sadist, and he is omnipotent, but he's also incompetent and can't fix the mess he made.

One of the four must be true.

(Which is of course BS, but so are the four possibilities you mentioned.)

Stormbinder

July 29th, 2004, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Stormbinder:
And friendly advice - next time before hoping on your favorite horse and raiding to rescue the love of your life, try to think a little bit before you write, otherwise you will look very stupid, like you do now, when you couldn't even think of simple way to profe autenticity of the photo, when any 8 year old kid with average IQ could quickly come up with logical solution for this mindbogling problem.Stormie, sweet girl - I'm guessing you're the 8 year old kid who thinks she has an average IQ? Just to remind you, it took _weeks_ to debunk some of the faked photos from 9/11. It took a team of historians to prove that Stalin had been rewriting history by redoing famous photographs - and that was long before the digital age.

"But we can have a current newspaper in the photo!" Yes, sweetling, and the newspaper image can be imposed in the photograph, just as modern cereals and soft drinks are being inserted into vintage television shows and images.

Not to mention that the current newspaper still wouldn't prove that the man in the photograph was Norfleet. But here's a lollipop for a nice try, kid. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

<hr /></blockquote>Congratulations Cain, you have finally figured small part of this simple puzzle. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif So there is hope for you after all. Who knows, maybe you even will get to the average IQ in the future for your age group, if you will try really hard. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif After all, brain and intellectual capacities can be developed, to the certain degree, up to the certain age. Don't give up!

Unfortuantley you are still not geting it, obviously. Now put your anger over humiliations and your romantic feeling to the Norfleet aside, and try to think a bit harder my friend. How it can be proved, beyond all reasonable doubts, that the person on picture with T34 is indeed Norfleet, and not some fabrication made out of old or modern photos?

Here is a hint for you - Norfleet is NOT a Stalin, neither he is the World Trade Center, surprising as it may be. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif C'mon Cain, I am telling you the truth - it is not that hard. Just try to think a little bit about it, that strange unpleasant sensation in your head will fade away eventually, I promise. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

With best regards,
Stormbinder

[ July 29, 2004, 22:40: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Arryn

July 29th, 2004, 11:11 PM

I'm always amused by people blathering on about an omniscient and omnipotent deity. Any such fictional construct would have to, by definition, be able to know, and to alter, the quantum state of EVERY particle in the ENTIRE universe, and to be able to do so instantly. An external oberver cannot observe the quantum state of a particle without altering it. Only the particles "know" their state. So, by deduction, such a omniwhatever deity would have to *be* the universe. If the deity embodies the universe (and is indistiguishable from it) it ceases to have an identity seperate from it. It's everywhere. Including in the humans that inhabit the universe. So (shocking as this may come), Norfleet is God. As am I. As are you. Of course, we, the "atoms" of God, still have a wee bit of a problem with the omnipotent ability to alter any particle, anywhere in the universe, instantly. This violates so many laws of physics that if it were true the universe could never have come into existence and possess the traits that we observe currently.

Well, the universe does exist, and we're having a very silly discussion, so God cannot possibly be omnipotent/omniscient or this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

Zapmeister

July 30th, 2004, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
It is a very extravagant claim to say that the laws of physics do not apply past a certain point. Do you have any proof of this?
When you start talking about proof, you're no longer doing science. The Theory of the Big Bang is just that, a theory. No-one has proof that the Universe started that way, even though it does do a good job of explaining the isotropic background microwave radiation.

I thought we were talking about the state of mainstream contemporary scientific thinking here, which definitely doesn't support your theory.

Zapmeister

July 30th, 2004, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
An external oberver cannot observe the quantum state of a particle without altering it. Only the particles "know" their state.
Yes, but that's only because we have to observe particles by operating on them in a physical way, such as arranging a collision with another particle.

As the creator of the physical Universe, I think we can safely assume that God has non-physical powers at His disposal, and so is free of the Heisenberg constraint (which He imposed in the first place).

And although the volume of information involved with being omniscient is staggering, there's no real limit on God's capacity to know stuff either. So I can't see that there's a metaphysical problem although, as I said before, it may cause problems with the consistency of Christian belief.

Regarding omnipotence, people always try to debunk it by pointing out that no being, no matter how powerful, can perform a logical contradiction or paradox. I think that's just linguistic trickery. We need to use the word "omnipotent" in the same way as the people ascribing that property to God, and I think those people probably meant that He could perform any logically valid physical (or spiritual, I suppose) operation.

Which would kind of make sense if He made everything in the first place.

Stormbinder

July 30th, 2004, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
I'm always amused by people blathering on about an omniscient and omnipotent deity. Any such fictional construct would have to, by definition, be able to know, and to alter, the quantum state of EVERY particle in the ENTIRE universe, and to be able to do so instantly. An external oberver cannot observe the quantum state of a particle without altering it. Only the particles "know" their state. So, by deduction, such a omniwhatever deity would have to *be* the universe. If the deity embodies the universe (and is indistiguishable from it) it ceases to have an identity seperate from it. It's everywhere. Including in the humans that inhabit the universe. So (shocking as this may come), Norfleet is God. As am I. As are you. Of course, we, the "atoms" of God, still have a wee bit of a problem with the omnipotent ability to alter any particle, anywhere in the universe, instantly. This violates so many laws of physics that if it were true the universe could never have come into existence and possess the traits that we observe currently.

Well, the universe does exist, and we're having a very silly discussion, so God cannot possibly be omnipotent/omniscient or this discussion wouldn't be taking place. The God do not play dices with the Universe, huh? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I could try to play a devil's advocate here, but I think I'll pass, or we may go too deep into the realm of Godel's theory, provable and unpovable, and Geinzerberg's principle from the quantum theory, that you were refering to.

[ July 29, 2004, 23:28: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

July 30th, 2004, 01:00 AM

Just a reminder to keep the barbequesqe personal remarks to yourself and future "Memoirs of People I Loathe". Those of you who are toeing the line know who you are.

PrinzMegaherz

July 30th, 2004, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Arryn:
Of course, we, the "atoms" of God, still have a wee bit of a problem with the omnipotent ability to alter any particle, anywhere in the universe, instantly. This violates so many laws of physics that if it were true the universe could never have come into existence and possess the traits that we observe currently. You lost me there. I completely agree to the first part of your posting. I do not understand however what you want to say with the qouted part. Lets assume we are the atoms of god, and earth might be a cell. Does a cell in my heart need to understand why it has to beat? Are the atoms of those cells even aware that something is beating?

Arryn

July 30th, 2004, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by spirokeat:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Arryn the agnostic and skeptic Surely as a skeptic you would be first in the house to put forward possibilities of how something could be outside the boundries of a prescribed theory ?<hr /></blockquote>Not my job. The burden of PROOF is upon those making the fantastical claims. If you say that you see and talk to a invisible, 6-armed, purple rabbit (or a deity), it's *your* problem to prove it. If I claim to have discovered cold fusion, it's my responsibility to prove it (provide evidence).

Skeptics study evidence to ascertain if the evidence is real.

There is NO evidence of diety, only hearsay. Until such time as there is quantifiable evidence, diety remains a fanciful concept that can neither be proved, nor disproved.

BTW, to the ancient Greeks, Zeus was as real as Allah is to folks today. If they were suffering from mass delusion, then logically so are all believers today. And if today's believers aren't delusional, then by corollary, neither were the ancient Greeks, and thus modern Judeo-Christian-Islam is wrong and there are many gods. Ergo, either way, religion is a falsehood. Prove otherwise. With hard evidence that can be subjected to scientific (or logical) testing.

Have fun.

Jack Simth

July 30th, 2004, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
Since you like "At least / only one of these four need be true" games, here's one for you.

#1 : God is a sadist, given the way the world is.
#2 : God isn't a sadist, but isn't omnipotent either, or the world wouldn't be the way it is.
#3 : God isn't a sadist, he is omnipotent, but he forgot about us and thus the world went to ****.
#4 : God isn't a sadist, and he is omnipotent, but he's also incompetent and can't fix the mess he made.

One of the four must be true.

(Which is of course BS, but so are the four possibilities you mentioned.) I'm sorry; I don't see a proof attached for critique; have you listed it elsewhere and I just missed it?

Jack Simth

July 30th, 2004, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jack Simth:
It is a very extravagant claim to say that the laws of physics do not apply past a certain point. Do you have any proof of this?
When you start talking about proof, you're no longer doing science. The Theory of the Big Bang is just that, a theory. No-one has proof that the Universe started that way, even though it does do a good job of explaining the isotropic background microwave radiation.
<hr /></blockquote>I might point out that the only reason I asked for proof was because the person I had been actively debating at the time had just gone on a bit of a tirade about proof being needed for extravagant claims. I suppose I should have been clearer that I was mostly just pointing out that my opponent was slipping a bit of a double-standard into his arguments. I might also point out that the second question, immediately following the segment you quote, was considerably less strict - asking for an observed instance of a violation of the apparently constant laws his theory of the universe required as variable. Originally posted by Zapmeister:

I thought we were talking about the state of mainstream contemporary scientific thinking here, which definitely doesn't support your theory. Of course, having the modern, apparently unbreakable laws of physics not apply past a certain point is a variation on one of the four possibilies of the logical proof I listed, isn't it? After all, if the laws didn't apply once, under one set of conditions, it's almost certainly theoretically possible for a similar state of affairs to be manufactured on some scale, and thus to break them again, and so either conservation or entropy (inclusive use of or) can be broken (and thus one/both of those two laws aren't correct under their current form), no?

I notice nobody seems to be attacking an itermediary step in my proof without suggesting one of the possible outs from the proof-by-contradiction I listed earlier - people seem to just be picking one of the possible four, arbitrarily assigning it to what I mean and attacking it. A "straw man" approach.

I suppose there are other outs from that proof - induction isn't valid, say; it never has been logically proven (it's been off-the-cuff proven in a "how could it not be true" kind of way, and it has never been logically disproven, but to the best of my knoweledge, induction has never been logically, rigorously proven). Or perhaps logic simply isn't valid when discussing ultimate origins. Or perhaps there is an infinite amount of energy; entropy only really applies to closed systems; in an infinite-energy system, you can push some energy to a lower-order state and then throw it away into the distance to maintain a higher-order state on the energy that is important to you (Oh, wait - that would be a variation on entropy doesn't work). Or perhaps there are an infinite number of possible universes - in which case it is reasonable for us to live in one with probability 0 - after all, we only live in 1, and one possability of infinity has probability k*1/infinity = 0 for some defined k, doesn't it (oh, wait - I listed a variation on that one - although specifing time rather than universe - close enough to count as a variation). Or perhaps it's only possible for us to exist on the measureable entropy/some amount of order slice of history's infinitive, and so we on a probability 0 slice of time because that's the only slice of time we can exist on (of course, the slice of time itself still has probability 0...).

Of course, nobody's arguing on any of those bases.

Edit: fixed quote formatting

[ July 30, 2004, 02:22: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]

Jack Simth

July 30th, 2004, 03:21 AM

Originally posted by Cainehill:
If one being can ignore the laws of physics - they aren't laws. If one being can break the laws - other beings, entities, energies, and objects can. *shrug* there's nothing in my proof that necessarily precludes that option. I could not figure out how to work it in, and so am not currently arguing on that basis.

Gandalf Parker

July 30th, 2004, 03:37 AM

The big bang is no longer the accepted theory. Its now Quantum strings and branes. And since that theory tosses out anything that was previously "proven wrong" by the rule of "energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed" we have a whole new ballpark for discussions of faster-than-light drives, teleportation, anything supernatural, and God.
We will have to wait for them to iron out all the quantum stuff alittle more.

Zapmeister

July 30th, 2004, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Of course, having the modern, apparently unbreakable laws of physics not apply past a certain point is a variation on one of the four possibilies of the logical proof I listed, isn't it?
Is it (original post has scrolled off, and I can't be bothered digging for it)? If that's the case, then what is it, exactly, that you're proving? That contemporary physics plus some other more exotic ideas are all possibilities?

If so, then I guess I'm forced to agree http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Sindai

July 30th, 2004, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
The big bang is no longer the accepted theory. Its now Quantum strings and branes.Za? I thought those were being incorporated into the Big Bang theory to explain inconsistences between older Versions of it and observations. The BBT itself (which I understand to mean simply that the universe began expanding from a single point) wasn't in question, since it's pretty broad.

And since that theory tosses out anything that was previously "proven wrong" by the rule of "energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed" Za again? Since when? I didn't think that quantum physics violated those rules yet. An explanatory link would be nice.

[ July 30, 2004, 05:02: Message edited by: Sindai ]

Arryn

July 30th, 2004, 07:51 AM

Sindai,

You're correct in your thoughts.

It seems that Gandalf has misinterpreted the "new physics" that's he's read about in the popular press, and drawn some conclusions that are not justified from the theories. I could Google up a bunch of relevent links to show this, but you or Gandalf should be able to find out the facts just as well. If not, let me know and I'll post them.

-- Arryn

Gandalf Parker

July 30th, 2004, 03:50 PM

True, I was trolling abit. No "rules" have been broken yet. The new Quantum theory concerning big bang gives a crossing of membranes releasing matter/energy into our "brane" (their word, not mine). So there is still a bang but no need for a collapse and re-bang. And the matter/energy cannot be destroyed/created rule isnt void but with Quantum Theory comes 11 dimensions and infinite branes. New measurements and new energys and new sources for matter will mean that recorded phenomena cast aside under the old rules will need re-examined. Most of my reading is from .edu sites and more likely to give headaches than answers. But there are some sudo-scientific publications which strive to explain things at a more human level.

The era of scientific stability which causes theorys to become concrete just by the passage of time was predicted to be running abit long just before Quantum broke in. They hoped Chaos Theory would do it but it didnt shake things up as much as Quantum. Its hitting every area. Even in my area (computers) its hitting cryptography, media storage, cpu speeds and wide-area-networks. So far, all in theory of course.
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/ph229/
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/

-- I knew the future was coming,
but it seems to be picking up speed.

[ July 30, 2004, 14:52: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]