Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 10041 - 10060 of total 22369 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
jstan

climber
Nov 18, 2012 - 12:38am PT
Primrose is no idiot, and he should not have just stuck with physics and math.

I have trouble interpreting this so I'll merely move on to something more colorful.

If you pull up Roger Penrose in Wiki you find Syracuse University in his list of associations. Back
in the early 60's Roger spent time at Syracuse because Peter Bergmann, one of Einstein's two
docents was there. While there he hung out with other youngsters, graduate students of a
theoretical persuasion and one solid stater who was studying under my thesis advisor. I will
describe a theoretical party I attended so you can get a flavor of the time. First of all realize no
one was talking relativity. Not one thing was described as being "manifestly covariant". I was
palpably relieved at the time as well should you be. Art, music, and automobiles were the central
topics, all delightfully interspersed. I had warning this would be the case as when I came in my
coworker pointed to a five foot high pile of used tires in the living room saying, "You can put your coat there."

It is necessary you know that coats were de rigueur in Syracuse, located as we were just down
wind from Lake Ontario. Furthermore that lake was hardly any distance at all to the south of the
arctic. I need say no more. One of the professors who professed paramagnetic resonance,
indeed, wore galoshes. All year long. There was much debate among the unwashed, as to
whether those galoshes came off at night. None of us questioned whether it was rational. Clearly
it would be very efficient if one had to fuss with galoshes only once in thirty years. We rejected
the idea of asking his wife as she was, while delightfully intelligent. old world Armenian so tough
Putin would have not dared ask of her the question on our minds. That said, back to the party.

When story time came we all heard about the trouble faced that very day by a relativist. No, not a
John Long relativist. A real relativist; velocity of light and all that. The car was a Renault. Tom had
located a Renault in one of Syracuse's many junk yards. Claude, an experimentalist went along so
that some hope might be had for the foraging party displaying some semblance of appropriate
behavior. Alas, it was not to be.

Tom folded the bonnet back over the passenger compartment so it would not be in the way. I
will not tell you Roger took a saw and some diagonal cutters and freed the engine of all its
insubstantial connections to the mother ship. It would be harsh to say such a thing. Tom then
climbed on top of the motor and began whaling at the motor mounts with an eight pound
sledge.

You need to appreciate this is what theoreticians do. If you have to evaluate an integral whose
argument blows up, you are allowed to do anything to avoid the singularity. You can transform it
to get it the hell out of there or you can integrate around it in a fake space. Anything goes.

You can guess what happened once the mounts and the universal were all broken. They rolled
the Renault on its side and the motor came to rest, unencumbered, at their feet.

I know this sounds very crude to an audience of climbers. Very refined as we are, we never did
any thing like this. But really. Sometime before you take the big one, you do need to learn how
the other 99% lives.

Consider that lesson learned.

(In the interest of fluid prose I have taken a few, manifestly covariant, liberties in this account.)
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Nov 18, 2012 - 09:48am PT
You need to appreciate this is what theoreticians do. If you have to evaluate an integral whose argument blows up, you are allowed to do anything to avoid the singularity. You can transform it to get it the hell out of there or you can integrate around it in a fake space. Anything goes.

How might this paragraph be paraphrased for those not contextualized in the subject matter? Might it be, "do whatever you want to make your ideas work out?" Isn't this, again, an example of intellectualism and conceptualization run amok? Does it amuse anyone else but me that a person (Penrose) is attempting to explain intellectually how consciousness cannot be explained intellectually?

Just how far into absurdity do things have to go before people suspect that there are limits to abstraction, conceptualization, rationalization, mental, scientific, thinking? A response might be, "well, maybe, but we have nothing else to rely upon."

Don't be so sure.
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Nov 18, 2012 - 09:59am PT
Romans 3:10 As it is written:

“There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.”
13 “Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.



Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

20 Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21 so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
splitter

Trad climber
Cali Hodad, surfing the galactic plane
Nov 18, 2012 - 10:44am PT
^ the more i think about go-b (& read his scripture quotes) the more he reminds of the prophet jeremiah!

so, i suspect go-b will, sooner or later, be thrown into a cistern (well) & then ... the judgment will come!!

;)
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 18, 2012 - 10:59am PT
on cue!
Credit: Dr. F.
WBraun

climber
Nov 18, 2012 - 11:18am PT
Dr F says; -- "The more you know, the more you live, the more it becomes imperative that you educate the lost souls."

Modern science rejects the notion of the "soul" as the proprietor of the material body.

Yet you just used soul and not the body to describe the living entity.

Instead look how stupid this would be:

It becomes imperative that you educate the lost bodies ...... :-)
Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 18, 2012 - 11:45am PT
I use the word soul in the Material sense
You are your soul, when you die, your soul dies

Please don't bother questioning my use of words that you don't understand, it makes you look like an angry crank
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
Nov 18, 2012 - 12:04pm PT
Here you go again...
Note that at no time ever has Fruiteloop ever offered a credible variation to a mechanistic model that is not ted to an alogrhythm

What twists and turns you lay down in your writing - if not intentionally in strategy and tactics to confound then in simple (naive, innocent?) sentence structure? Yikes! Tell me Lunko, what do algorithms have to do with the basic mechanistic model I support?

The mechanistic model I support... which simply follows from science and a science edu... accepts (a) a mechanistic universe and (b) mechanistic organisms (which of course includes the noble creature of Man, who is no exception with any special dispensation). And to be clear by mechanistic, I mean of course (if you've been paying attn) obedient to causality through and through. Pretty simple.

Only religions and confounders in pursuit of their own ideology (which perhaps includes the protection of theology as a tradition) make a mess of it.

Attitude is everything. Just accept the fact that in the modern era, the mechanistic model fully obedient to causality is a viable one on a scientific basis. And in turn a viable one quite serviceable "as foundational belief" to good living going forward in the modern era.

.....

Dr. F wrote,
I use the word soul in the Material sense
You are your soul, when you die, your soul dies


Excellent.

Ever more atheists to agonostics to naturalists to progressive secularists and others are starting to give increasing attn to the language they use. (Just like Dems, finally at long last, in their ideological battles against Repubs.) This is good.

English words like belief, faith, spirit, spirituality, even soul, are great English words deeply enmeshed in English culture and institutions. We simply cannot relinquish them to religions. (Bad strategy.) Instead we must employ them going forward and point out their illegitimacy in religious superstitious context. That is the winning strategy.



Example: It's not "faith" or "belief" in itself that's so weak, provoking or whatever in any number of contexts or conversations but "religious faith" or "religious belief" that is so.

Examples, More: (1) I have tons of belief in rock climbing. By and large these beliefs are science, reason and evidence-based beliefs. (2) My soul yearns to be young again to climb Astroman with Werner B as my second. (3) Everyday I tend to the well-being of my spirituality as a core concern of my "practice of living."
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
USA Moundhouse Nev. and land o da SLEDS!
Nov 18, 2012 - 12:07pm PT
perhps some souls die,, but NONE i know and feel....
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Nov 18, 2012 - 12:15pm PT
Does it amuse anyone else but me that a person (Penrose) is attempting to explain intellectually how consciousness cannot be explained intellectually?
-


Penrose said all along that he believed that consciousness is non-alogrithmic, meaning it is not mechanistic, i.e., it is not "created" by nor does it arise from a linear sequence - as in the sequences we see in mathematics and computer science, where a algorithm is a "step-by-step procedure for calculations."

It is helpful to note that when "continuous" is applied to "algorithm" it means an algorithm operating on data that represents continuous quantities, even though this data is represented by discrete approximations—such algorithms are studied in numerical analysis; or an algorithm in the form of a differential equation that operates continuously on the data, running on an analog computer.

Again, we might have a "soft" deterministic/mechanistic model by introjecting random/chaotic alogrithms, but this does not effect the beliefs in a linear sequence or the "creation" model from which it is drawn.

The implication of Penrose is that the alogorithm model works well to describe the discursive mind. Try and reckon some thing without the associative linear sequencing leading up the said thing existing in the world. The discursive mind only deals with sequences. The right brain, and awareness, works on a different track, so intellectual (discursive) explanations are of no use.

Notice how many people on this list are adamant to keep the conversation beholden to a neatly ordered sequence according to accepted discursive protocols - and place great virtue on doing same - frightened as they are of venturing into the deeper waters of no-thingness - the very bane of the rational mind. Such as adventure is to step from the security of the material/discursive, into the quicksand of the void, and we can hardly blame those who call foul, snakeoil, priestcraft, juju, wuwu, and so on, believing as they do that forays outside the discursive are the selfsame as shaking gunny sacks full of rattlers, navel gazing, and searching for the "perfect cherry blossom."

Of course this has noting whatsoever to do with reality, or the fact that we all have a non-linear right brain.

JL

JL
jstan

climber
Nov 18, 2012 - 12:16pm PT
Might it be, "do whatever you want to make your ideas work out?" Isn't this, again, an example of intellectualism and conceptualization run amok? Does it amuse anyone else but me that a person (Penrose) is attempting to explain intellectually how consciousness cannot be explained intellectually?

Just how far into absurdity do things have to go before people suspect that there are limits to abstraction, conceptualization, rationalization, mental, scientific, thinking? A response might be, "well, maybe, but we have nothing else to rely upon."

ML:: Now you are interpreting something so as to support your beliefs. Theoreticians have a toolbox that has been worked out over the last 300 years. When they don't make an error the calculations are mathematically valid. What I was saying is theoreticians can be viewed much like a mechanic frantically sorting through a tool box to find something that works. And they even can be found grinding down a wrench to make it work. The image is funny and human all at the same time.

And the image of Tom bashing out the motor mounts is right along these lines.

Edit: HF corrected my misattribution on this post. Thanks HF.

Edit2:
Why even use these words "Heaven" "soul" "God" "Absolute Truth" if they don't exist?

An excellent observation! We all are affected by our context in levels deeper than we know. As Sir Robinson says, "Got to try harder."

I know I will have succeeded when I say "Oh shoot!" after hitting my thumb with a hammer. I think I am nearly there with the old chestnut "soul." The absurdity of that concept made it pretty easy.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
Nov 18, 2012 - 12:28pm PT
Augghh,

If HF is me, I think you confused me with MikeL. Heaven forbid!

I say again, Heaven forbid!! ;)

Their resistance to carefully understanding words suggests they are here only for the chance to argue.

Yes, "a chance to argue" or perhaps... to post and to be heard... to be validated.

To be validated... perhaps our species member's deepest need.



Or maybe not. Maybe HF is short for "Hairy Forearms" or some such - and a nickname for MikeL (whose quote was posted, not mine) that I'm just not privy to. If so, please accept my apologies.
WBraun

climber
Nov 18, 2012 - 12:51pm PT
Why even use these words "Heaven" "soul" "God" "Absolute Truth" if they don't exist?
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
Nov 18, 2012 - 12:56pm PT
Souls exist.

See my usage example (two posts back) citing you. :)

Truth certainly exists.

As you've said, the Sun rises in the east. That is a truth. (The claim that the sun rises in the west is not the truth.) The subject at bottom can be as simple as this.

Apparently Ed, for instance, by his own admission, says he has a "peculiar view" of truth. His perrogative, of course.

One of my favorite personal examples: The Egyptians bombed Pearl Harbor in Dec, 1941. This is NOT a truth. No worries though, as most of us posting on this thread do know the corresponding actual truth.
MH2

climber
Nov 18, 2012 - 12:59pm PT
We make mistakes. John's story was worth quite a few mistakes.


Just how far into absurdity do things have to go before people suspect that there are limits to abstraction, conceptualization, rationalization, mental, scientific, thinking? A response might be, "well, maybe, but we have nothing else to rely upon."

Did we read the same story? I know the existential answer, but did we? How would you, MikeL, approach the problem of automobile repair? I don't think a case was being made for homology with applied mathematics, but they aren't entirely unrelated, either.


And in answer to your question, not far at all.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Nov 18, 2012 - 01:03pm PT
The mechanistic model I support... which simply follows from science and a science edu... accepts (a) a mechanistic universe and (b) mechanistic organisms (which of course includes the noble creature of Man, who is no exception). And by mechanistic, I mean of course (if you've been paying attn) obedient to causality through and through. Pretty simple.

Almost everyone here thinks the mechanistic model is a pretty simple and straightforward set of ideas to accept and rely upon. The acceptance is to be expected. Few readers are aware of the work of the giants. It's not that the work of the giants have all been right. It's more that whatever has been discovered, has been discovered upon the shoulders of giants. (Jstan says just this, I think.)

But, as for "causality through and through", one should remember that causality is not only difficult to prove empirically, but as an idea or concept, causality and the ability of an individual to make things happen through volition or will (cause-and-effect) have been long challenged.

1. One thing coming before another thing does not establish causality (a logical fallacy referred to as "post hoc ergo propter hoc"). Causal modeling is exceedingly difficult, and the results always iffy.

2. Hannah Arendt: "The greatest difficulty faced by every discussion of the Will is the simple fact that there is no other capacity of mind whose very existence has been so consistently doubted and refuted by so eminent a series of philosophers" (The Life of the Mind, 1978). Without will and volition, cause-and-effect vanishes with regards to beings. Will and intention may simply be epiphenomena (see, Nietzsche's The Will to Power).
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
-A race of corn eaters
Nov 18, 2012 - 01:12pm PT
Well MikeL,

Let me just say, a lifetime spent in applying science in engineering labs first designing things in imagination and on paper and then second building them and third watching them work and admiring them - even fourth depending on them to safeguard or save a life or lives - might change your mind - or change your attitude - concerning causality, that's all.



btw, there is simply no better instructor in the ways of the world in terms of causality than electronics, electronics engineering, electronic products.

Every running computer in every home or office around the world right now is a functioning example of causality and its regularities at work.

Causality is real.
Causality is what makes us work.
Causality is what keeps us working - both in real time (an engineering word) and over history.
Causality is a thing of beauty. :)

photo not found
Missing photo ID#238528

Regarding causality, no "special dispensation" for humans either. That claim is also in the mechanistic model I accept.


Causality rocks.
Without it we simply wouldn't exist. Nor our fancy electronic devices.
RESPECT.



If in the future our world societies wanted to personify something of nature apart from nature itself as "God," - say in the spirit of Voltaire - then let them personify causality. That would be my nomination.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Nov 18, 2012 - 01:18pm PT
MH2:

My comment to John were about the paragraph, not the entire story. I was most responding to his line: "Anything goes."

That summary is laudable for (perhaps) will, intention, means-ends purposes, but it's not the sort of thing that we usually honor in all conditions. In fact, I think, most of the time we don't want people to use it as guidance. We usually want people to follow established procedures, norms of behavior, and beliefs.

Does that strike you as "over the top?" Perhaps I'm picking particularly on a single short sentence. I'm being selective and unfair.

But there at that point of the thread, I thought, we were discussing thought, science, and an orientation to an academic or intellectual problem. I believe that the mind is infinitely creative, energetic, and maybe even deviously insidious. If it cannot find what it wants, it will create it. My point is that THAT is NOT how we typically want to think about or work science. Most people believe that science FINDS reality, rather than create it deviously and creatively. Or at least we think it SHOULD.

Like HF and Dr. F. continually point out, what I write is not important here.

(Actually I should get out and get some exercise instead of exercising my own imagination. Cheers!)
WBraun

climber
Nov 18, 2012 - 01:31pm PT
Yes Causality is real there is no way around it.

It's a bonafide fact .....

Dr F -- "Please don't bother questioning my use of words that you don't understand ..."

This how a self absorbed nihilistic narcissist speaks ......
WBraun

climber
Nov 18, 2012 - 02:17pm PT
But in the end result ultimately everything has a cause ......
Messages 10041 - 10060 of total 22369 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews