Okay, so everyone knows what an atheist is, but what about a misotheist?
Misotheist: A person who hates a God or Gods.
So, what is your opinion on misotheists? Let me know.
Then they can't be an atheist. If you 'hate' a god or gods then you are acknowledging that they or it, exists. An atheist does not acknowledge that such things as gods exist.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 12, 2017, 10:53:19 AM
Then they can't be an atheist. If you 'hate' a god or gods then you are acknowledging that they or it, exists. An atheist does not acknowledge that such things as gods exist.
Well, I didn't say that they're atheists, since you can't hate something you don't believe in. I just wanted to know what
people thought about misotheists, since people don't talk about them that often.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 12, 2017, 10:53:19 AM
Then they can't be an atheist. If you 'hate' a god or gods then you are acknowledging that they or it, exists. An atheist does not acknowledge that such things as gods exist.
I disagree. It is perfectly possible to hate a fictional character, especially when you were raised to believe in them, trusted them fully, and wasted years of your life, energy, and money serving them. I can think of a few fictional characters I've never had an emotional attachment to that I hate anyway. Umbridge from Harry Potter, Kazeem from Skyrim, nearly all of the Lannisters from Game of Thrones (especially Cersei), just to name a few.
Do you see it as related to atheism? A misotheist is a theist, but you introduced the word side by side with atheist implying there was a relationship.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, but as for my opinion on them... sounds like a complete waste of time.
Quote from: SGOS on December 12, 2017, 11:14:56 AM
Do you see it as related to atheism? A misotheist is a theist, but you introduced the word side by side with atheist implying there was a relationship.
No, I know misotheism is not related to atheism, since atheism is a lack of belief in a God or Gods, but misotheism
is a hatred of a God or Gods.And yes, misotheists are theists, since they acknowledge the existence of a god or gods.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 12, 2017, 11:11:49 AM
I disagree. It is perfectly possible to hate a fictional character, especially when you were raised to believe in them, trusted them fully, and wasted years of your life, energy, and money serving them. I can think of a few fictional characters I've never had an emotional attachment to that I hate anyway. Umbridge from Harry Potter, Kazeem from Skyrim, nearly all of the Lannisters from Game of Thrones (especially Cersei), just to name a few.
Most likely I'm splitting hairs. I hate some fictional characters, like Mighty Mouse and Papa Smurf. But I also realize they are not alive--I hate what they symbolize for me or the idea they seem to display. So, yeah, splitting hairs.
Quote from: ƵenKlassen on December 12, 2017, 11:21:44 AM
No, I know misotheism is not related to atheism, since atheism is a lack of belief in a God or Gods, but misotheism
is a hatred of a God or Gods.
And yes, misotheists are theists, since they acknowledge the existence of a god or gods.
Then they are like all theists--reasoning and rational thought is not something they do.
I've known a couple of people who were angry at God. One was a man whose son died at a young age. Prior to his son's death he had been a devout Catholic and attended services regularly. After his son's death he never went to church again, said he hated God and believed the world was a bad place. He still believed in God but remained bitter on the topic for the twenty years I knew him. He died of cancer a couple of years ago.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 12, 2017, 11:46:11 AM
I've known a couple of people who were angry at God. One was a man whose son died at a young age. Prior to his son's death he had been a devout Catholic and attended services regularly. After his son's death he never went to church again, said he hated God and believed the world was a bad place. He still believed in God but remained bitter on the topic for the twenty years I knew him. He died of cancer a couple of years ago.
People have an odd way of processing thoughts.
Yeah, I think I used to be a misotheist myself a few years ago. It was only until about 6 months ago that I became an atheist.
Quote from: ƵenKlassen on December 12, 2017, 11:54:01 AM
Yeah, I think I used to be a misotheist myself a few years ago. It was only until about 6 months ago that I became an atheist.
Why the change??
A misotheist is like someone who hates Sonic the Hedgehog. They're hating on a fictional character, and just like an anti-Sonic fanboy, there's just about as much point to it.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 12, 2017, 11:11:49 AM
I disagree. It is perfectly possible to hate a fictional character, especially when you were raised to believe in them, trusted them fully, and wasted years of your life, energy, and money serving them. I can think of a few fictional characters I've never had an emotional attachment to that I hate anyway. Umbridge from Harry Potter, Kazeem from Skyrim, nearly all of the Lannisters from Game of Thrones (especially Cersei), just to name a few.
Wow ... I hate a lot of the same fictional people.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 12, 2017, 11:37:00 AM
Most likely I'm splitting hairs. I hate some fictional characters, like Mighty Mouse and Papa Smurf. But I also realize they are not alive--I hate what they symbolize for me or the idea they seem to display. So, yeah, splitting hairs.
I don't hate the same fictional characters as you do. I think you are Gargamel.
Quote from: ƵenKlassen on December 12, 2017, 11:54:01 AM
Yeah, I think I used to be a misotheist myself a few years ago. It was only until about 6 months ago that I became an atheist.
You are talking to The Misotheist ... and The Misanthrop also. As an incarnation-ist ... I see them as of one piece ;-)
I have known theists, who have been hurt, and blame G-d for all their defects etc. I take it to a metaphysical level.
Quote from: ƵenKlassen on December 12, 2017, 10:45:23 AM
So, what is your opinion on misotheists?
I would say their hatred is well placed.
Quote from: Baruch on December 12, 2017, 06:17:59 PM
Wow ... I hate a lot of the same fictional people.
You hate god--so there ya go.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 12, 2017, 12:21:15 PM
Why the change??
Because I realized that there is no god, and I was just wasting my time with this nonsensical hatred.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 12, 2017, 11:39:28 AM
Then they are like all theists--reasoning and rational thought is not something they do.
Well, not all but most. I mean, I think deists are rational thinkers.
Quote from: ƵenKlassen on December 12, 2017, 07:55:56 PM
Because I realized that there is no god, and I was just wasting my time with this nonsensical hatred.
What lead you to that conclusion--that there is no god? What changed for you that you no understand that god is not real? Just curious--atheists reach that point from many different directions.
Quote from: Baruch on December 12, 2017, 06:19:19 PM
I don't hate the same fictional characters as you do. I think you are Gargamel.
I watched many cartoons on TV. George of the Jungle, Beanie and Cecil, Bullwinkle and Rocky, Heckle and Jeckle and on and on. But the Smurfs, for some reason, are simply irritating. So, I guess I can be Gargamel when I want to be irritating.
Quote from: ƵenKlassen on December 12, 2017, 08:00:06 PM
Well, not all but most. I mean, I think deists are rational thinkers.
What makes a deist a rational thinker?
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 12, 2017, 08:16:01 PM
What lead you to that conclusion--that there is no god? What changed for you that you no understand that god is not real? Just curious--atheists reach that point from many different directions.
Well, mainly research. I think what Stephen Hawking said about the creation of the universe was interesting...From what I remember, Stephen Hawking claimed that the universe created itself...
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 12, 2017, 08:20:18 PM
What makes a deist a rational thinker?
Well, they don't follow silly religions like: Christianity, Islam, and so on...They also don't pray, since prayer is useless.
Quote from: ƵenKlassen on December 12, 2017, 08:32:40 PM
Well, mainly research. I think what Stephen Hawking said about the creation of the universe was interesting...
From what I remember, Stephen Hawking claimed that the universe created itself...
Research is good. Make sure it is well rounded. What I mean is, research both sides of an issue. For example, Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price have many good books dealing with the atheist/skeptic point of view religion. On the other side, the theist side--well, it has been quite some time since I have done serious research and cannot remember any good writers of the theist side--but I'm sure the internet will provide you with some. And then consider who are making the most sound arguments based on logic, critical thinking and facts.
Quote from: ƵenKlassen on December 12, 2017, 08:36:13 PM
Well, they don't follow silly religions like: Christianity, Islam, and so on...
They also don't pray, since prayer is useless.
But they still believe in the supernatural--if not god then a god-like force. I view it as the same as any other theist in that they believe in god. I don't see the need to think there is any force outside of nature--there is no evidence for it.
Quote from: ƵenKlassen on December 12, 2017, 08:00:06 PM
Well, not all but most. I mean, I think deists are rational thinkers.
In Lurianic Kabbalah, G-d is a mad scientist who gets careless and blows himself up (like a certain scene in Rick & Morty). The job of Kabbalists in that scheme, is to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
G-d made the Big Bang and then went on vacation? Sounds a lot like the first part of Genesis ;-)
Quote from: ƵenKlassen on December 12, 2017, 08:32:40 PM
Well, mainly research. I think what Stephen Hawking said about the creation of the universe was interesting...
From what I remember, Stephen Hawking claimed that the universe created itself...
Correct ... he has a weird, not accepted, belief in loop time. Kind of like a bad episode of Star Trek-Next Gen that I keep trying to forget.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 12, 2017, 09:09:14 PM
Research is good. Make sure it is well rounded. What I mean is, research both sides of an issue. For example, Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price have many good books dealing with the atheist/skeptic point of view religion. On the other side, the theist side--well, it has been quite some time since I have done serious research and cannot remember any good writers of the theist side--but I'm sure the internet will provide you with some. And then consider who are making the most sound arguments based on logic, critical thinking and facts.
What? You have forgotten me already? I am hurt, hurt I tell you ...
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 12, 2017, 09:10:56 PM
But they still believe in the supernatural--if not god then a god-like force. I view it as the same as any other theist in that they believe in god. I don't see the need to think there is any force outside of nature--there is no evidence for it.
Yoda teach you he will ;-)
Let me put it this way - if there actually were a God, such as that depicted in the Bible, I would hate it with every fiber of my being until the end of eternity. Lucky for me no such monstrosity does exist.
Quote from: Baruch on December 13, 2017, 06:24:04 AM
Yoda teach you he will ;-)
Yoda did teach me--not to watch Star Wars movies.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 14, 2017, 06:12:44 PM
Let me put it this way - if there actually were a God, such as that depicted in the Bible, I would hate it with every fiber of my being until the end of eternity. Lucky for me no such monstrosity does exist.
Memes exist ... just not in any way you would admit to. For you perhaps, a hammer exists, but not the idea of a hammer. But the idea came first. In fact, without the idea of a hammer, you can't perceive a hammer, even if you have it in your hand. A baby doesn't have the idea, and so for a baby it is just another unintelligible object. Sensation without perception is blind. That is what distinguishes a one semi-random set of atoms from another semi-random set of atoms.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 14, 2017, 07:08:38 PM
Yoda did teach me--not to watch Star Wars movies.
Sith you are! Nihilists come in twos!
Quote from: ƵenKlassen on December 12, 2017, 08:32:40 PMFrom what I remember, Stephen Hawking claimed that the universe created itself...
The definition of the universe is the sum total of everything. By definition, nothing can be outside that to act on it.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 14, 2017, 09:22:15 PM
The definition of the universe is the sum total of everything. By definition, nothing can be outside that to act on it.
Definitions that define themselves, are circular .. and are fraught with paradox. Make your ideas as simple as possible, but not simpler. Could it be that "universe" is meaningless? Lots of metaphysical words are proclaimed by Positivism ... to be meaningless. And "universe" is rather metaphysical. It is only in the context of the universe that existence has meaning.
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 14, 2017, 09:22:15 PM
The definition of the universe is the sum total of everything. By definition, nothing can be outside that to act on it.
I've heard worse definitions. And one surprise I had a few years ago was when someone pointed out that, while the speed of light was the limit in the universe, the universe itself had no such limitation. I'm still struggling to comprehend inflation. And into what.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 15, 2017, 03:17:37 AM
I've heard worse definitions. And one surprise I had a few years ago was when someone pointed out that, while the speed of light was the limit in the universe, the universe itself had no such limitation. I'm still struggling to comprehend inflation. And into what.
Actually two things in GR contradict conservation of mass-energy ... the Big Bang (and Inflation) and gravitational waves. The last couple of years, gravitational waves seem to be on firmer ground. So basically nothing is conserved, if you consider all possibilities .. the trick is that conservation is relative to the circumstances. In some, energy is conserved but mass is not, or mass is conserved and energy is not, or mass-energy is conserved except when it is not. It is best not to be too hung up on Newtonian alchemy and Revelations voodoo.
Quote from: Baruch on December 15, 2017, 05:36:22 PM
Actually two things in GR contradict conservation of mass-energy ... the Big Bang (and Inflation) and gravitational waves.
Are you speaking outside your field again?
Quote from: Baruch on December 15, 2017, 05:36:22 PM
Actually two things in GR contradict conservation of mass-energy ... the Big Bang (and Inflation) and gravitational waves. The last couple of years, gravitational waves seem to be on firmer ground. So basically nothing is conserved, if you consider all possibilities .. the trick is that conservation is relative to the circumstances. In some, energy is conserved but mass is not, or mass is conserved and energy is not, or mass-energy is conserved except when it is not. It is best not to be too hung up on Newtonian alchemy and Revelations voodoo.
Conservation of matter only applies to closed systems. I hate it when theists try to use conservation of matter as an argument against the Big Bang. Like, oh I'm sure all the experts in physics, who spend years researching things that normal people can't even begin to understand, just completely forgot about that rule! And never mind the fact that if it were impossible for matter to be created, then by extention, God logically couldn't be responsible for creating the universe. Theists don't have to play by their own rules because...he's God!
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 16, 2017, 02:35:28 AM
Conservation of matter only applies to closed systems. I hate it when theists try to use conservation of matter as an argument against the Big Bang. Like, oh I'm sure all the experts in physics, who spend years researching things that normal people can't even begin to understand, just completely forgot about that rule! And never mind the fact that if it were impossible for matter to be created, then by extention, God logically couldn't be responsible for creating the universe. Theists don't have to play by their own rules because...he's God!
Actual stuff from actual Physics grad school ... look it up. Has nothing to do with theism.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
Yes, the people here, myself included, have PhDs and Nobels ... bwhahah
What is actually going on in GR cosmology ... the Big Bang represents a unique boundary to both space and time. We think of it as "creation" because of our anthropomorphism (see some posters since gone). I have never used the Big Bang as an argument for theism. I consider it to be irrelevant.
Yes, a closed system can't lose or gain anything. And GR gravitational wave interpretation problems are small scale ... so basically an open system. But is the universe an open or closed system? I defy anyone to claim they know the answer to that. Is there even such a thing as a truly closed system? Nothing short of the universe itself is closed, except as an approximation, and there's the rub. There is no true/perfect thermos bottle ... everything is leaking thermal radiation to what is external to it. And importantly, in the case of the Earth, receiving a lot of EM radiation from the outside.
^If you got from Baez's article that there is no energy conservation in GR, then you are right and wrong: you are on the surface right, but wrong on a deeper level. The point of the article is not that we can get nothing from something and vice versa in GR, but that there are a lot of "gotchas" that are traps for young players. The misunderstanding stems from the fact that energy and mass in relativity (GR or SR) are not strict invariants; they depend on how you're moving relative to them. It's the energy-momentum 4-vector that is conserved. You are regarding a single component in a vector quantity, rather than a discrete quantity in and of itself, and as such it is at the mercy of the coordinate system you use, which may not have nice properties when you try to suss out energy balances in finite volumes.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 17, 2017, 12:11:05 AM
^If you got from Baez's article that there is no energy conservation in GR, then you are right and wrong: you are on the surface right, but wrong on a deeper level. The point of the article is not that we can get nothing from something and vice versa in GR, but that there are a lot of "gotchas" that are traps for young players. The misunderstanding stems from the fact that energy and mass in relativity (GR or SR) are not strict invariants; they depend on how you're moving relative to them. It's the energy-momentum 4-vector that is conserved. You are regarding a single component in a vector quantity, rather than a discrete quantity in and of itself, and as such it is at the mercy of the coordinate system you use, which may not have nice properties when you try to suss out energy balances in finite volumes.
Yes, and you get it ;-) Any energy balance in a finite volume is temporary and approximate. The mass loss due to thermal loss from a thermos bottle is very small ... but still non-zero. It is irrelevant to the argument to say "in X coordinate system it is this" but "in Y coordinate system it is that" .. because in no coordinate system will it be zero or negative (just the coordinate division of the 4-vector will differ). In the case of the energy/power 4-vector, variance of it we call rest mass vs kinetic energy.
Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2017, 08:52:48 AM
Yes, and you get it ;-) Any energy balance in a finite volume is temporary and approximate. The mass loss due to thermal loss from a thermos bottle is very small ... but still non-zero.
No. A thermos cooling is
not an example of energy conservation violation because all the energy leaving the boundary of the thermos is accounted for. Energy conservation is roughly speaking "energy in less energy out equals the change of the system's energy" â€" the thermal energy (and associated mass) lost by the thermos is exactly the energy that leaked out. The universe being open would do nothing to destroy energy conservation in GR, because an open system provides an avenue for energy to be gained or lost; it would be the energy in and energy out. The problems with with trying to find the integral energy in a system in GR is connected with the fact that energy is not a tensor in GR and does funny things in curved spacetime with a coordinate system that does not respect that curvature. Integrals, after all, are taken over finite volumes, which in curved manifolds can be quite hairy to deal with.
Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2017, 08:52:48 AM
In the case of the energy/power 4-vector, variance of it we call rest mass vs kinetic energy.
There is no such tensor as the "energy/power 4-vector;" it's the energy-
momentum 4-vector. The rest mass is actually an invariant of the system â€" it is the magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector, which
is a tensor and does not depend on the coordinate system. The kinetic energy is an artifact of the frame of reference. It can vary from zero to any finite value depending on the velocity the particle has in a particular frame.
Loose language on my part, misreading on your part. My original response had to do with the idea that "closed system" is a real thing. Do you believe in "closed systems" or not? Quoting a simplistic notion that the universe is closed by definition, doesn't help anyone. And again, this has to do with my correcting bad physics ... aka idealistic non-empirical stuff. Has nothing to do with theism.
And yes, if you want to get into differential equations, tensor analysis etc .. we could, but it would boor people to tears.
Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2017, 12:39:20 PM
Loose language on my part, misreading on your part. My original response had to do with the idea that "closed system" is a real thing. Do you believe in "closed systems" or not?
Truly closed systems are hard to demonstrate, as they are required to satisfy conditions that are hard to verify. They also require conditions that make them fundamentally impossible to observe (every observation is an interaction with the system, and require exchange of energy), and as such are experimentally useless to anyone external to them. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist. If the universe had truly no way of interacting with any other, external entity, and as such exchange energy with it, then by definition it would be a closed system. If you define the universe as everything that exists (as things you can interact with), then there can be no other object external to the universe for it to interact and exchange energy with,
by definition. Ergo, if the universe is everything, it is closed. By definition.
Yes, that depends on how you define "universe." But given that definition, the universe would qualify and without possibility that it does not. By Hydra's definition of "universe," his statement would be absolutely correct.
Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2017, 12:39:20 PM
Quoting a simplistic notion that the universe is closed by definition, doesn't help anyone. And again, this has to do with my correcting bad physics ... aka idealistic non-empirical stuff. Has nothing to do with theism.
Except you
didn't correct any bad physics here. The way Hydra defined the universe meant that it couldn't be anything else
but a completely closed system. Furthermore, the way you presented GR as not "conserving energy" was misleading. It was bad physics.
Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2017, 12:39:20 PMQuoting a simplistic notion that the universe is closed by definition, doesn't help anyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLu1cTKBspI
"simplistic"
Pythagoras = everything is number, and all numbers are based on "1" ... so everything is based on "1" ... and accountants/statisticians are gods.
Sorry, oversimplification. And it isn't a cosmos, it is a chaos. The Greeks were wrong.
Oversimplification to the point of losing relevant detail doesn't make you look like a scholar.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 17, 2017, 10:00:35 PM
Oversimplification to the point of losing relevant detail doesn't make you look like a scholar.
i am not a scholar .. a demigod ;-) And statistically speaking, you are wrong ;-))
Join me singing ... ignore the OP, ignore the OP ... is that a detail?
We have a Known Universe of matter we can detect. But there is more we cannot detect. That farthest star we can see that is nearly as old as we think the universe is, is also seen equally as far on the other direction.
This bothers me from time to time.
Inflation suggests that the universe is far larger than we think. I hate "infinity".
Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 08:04:14 AM
We have a Known Universe of matter we can detect. But there is more we cannot detect. That farthest star we can see that is nearly as old as we think the universe is, is also seen equally as far on the other direction.
This bothers me from time to time.
Inflation suggests that the universe is far larger than we think. I hate "infinity".
You are not alone hating "infinity" ... quite a few thinkers have done so. I think detectable matter is really there, but until the science gets better, I am not fueling my car with dark energy and building it with dark matter. What lies more than a billion light years away, doesn't concern me either.
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2017, 01:52:25 PM
You are not alone hating "infinity" ... quite a few thinkers have done so. I think detectable matter is really there, but until the science gets better, I am not fueling my car with dark energy and building it with dark matter. What lies more than a billion light years away, doesn't concern me either.
What? No "God set up the light rays to arrive here JUST KNOW"?
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 12, 2017, 11:11:49 AM
I disagree. It is perfectly possible to hate a fictional character, especially when you were raised to believe in them, trusted them fully, and wasted years of your life, energy, and money serving them. I can think of a few fictional characters I've never had an emotional attachment to that I hate anyway. Umbridge from Harry Potter, Kazeem from Skyrim, nearly all of the Lannisters from Game of Thrones (especially Cersei), just to name a few.
or..
(http://www.max983fm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/9a2226402db5071f2b4808d1f755cb81.png)
At one point, the early version of Mickey was banned in Denmark, because his thin limbs made him macabre.
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2017, 06:33:00 AM
i am not a scholar .. a demigod ;-) And statistically speaking, you are wrong ;-))
This would be a lot more convincing if you demonstrated any competence in statistics or probability.
Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2017, 06:33:00 AM
Join me singing ... ignore the OP, ignore the OP ... is that a detail?
Irrelevant detail. I did qualify that the detail has to be relevant. You said something about your vision going. It's getting worse, because you seem to not be able to read.
Why should I claim, falsely, to have expertise in your field? Speaking of statistics, if you use a coin, you are wrong, 50% of the time. If you use a single dice, you are wrong (if "one" is right) 5/6th of the time. In short ... use of statistics means that the odds of being right get asymptotically small as you increase your sophistication (particularly if this is sophism).
Quote from: Baruch on December 20, 2017, 01:37:08 AM
Why should I claim, falsely, to have expertise in your field?
Dude, I have yet to see proof that you have expertise in any field involving engineering or science. I have seen competence from you in the case of biblical scholarship, but not in GR, not in engineering. Sorry.
I dare say you even take pride in not knowing statistics. To me, that is not a laudable trait, even less if you have any scientific or engineering background.
Quote from: Baruch on December 20, 2017, 01:37:08 AM
Speaking of statistics, if you use a coin, you are wrong, 50% of the time. If you use a single dice, you are wrong (if "one" is right) 5/6th of the time. In short ... use of statistics means that the odds of being right get asymptotically small as you increase your sophistication (particularly if this is sophism).
If I claim that the coin will land on head or tails, then I will be right 100% of the time. If I say a die will land on a face containing dots, then I will be right 100% of the time (assuming it's one with pips and not D&D dice). So you're wrong there â€" my chance of being wrong depends on what I will claim.
Now, if I use statistics to make some claim that is at risk, will I be wrong on occasion predicting the outcome of a particular event? Of course I will. It is in the nature of randomness that it will sometimes do something that is rare. But I can tell you how likely that will occur, and given enough data I can tell you that to whatever decimal place you desire, and I will be right. This is because the principle use of statistics is to tell you the general character of a population, not any individual event.
So, yeah. I will be wrong 50% of the time on a particular coin toss, but after thousands of tosses, I can tell you that the coin is fair and I can say I will be wrong that 50% with complete confidence. Same with the die. Again, whether I'm right or not depends on what I will claim. As you toss that coin more and more times, I can with increasing confidence tell you whether that coin is fair.
After all, casinos bank on the fact that their "customers" will lose over the long run. The gambling industry is not in any danger of going bankrupt.
"The gambling industry is not in any danger of going bankrupt."
Nore are statisticians ;-)
I know what goes up, must come down. What more do I need to know about physics?
Quote from: Baruch on December 20, 2017, 07:22:23 PM
"The gambling industry is not in any danger of going bankrupt."
Nore are statisticians ;-)
I know what goes up, must come down. What more do I need to know about physics?
Unless Trump is running the casino.
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 20, 2017, 07:58:15 PM
Unless Trump is running the casino.
Ronald Reagan was teflon too. I don't like Republicans, but life must have been hard for you in 1969 - 1977, 1981-1993 and 2001-2009 plus 2017 onward. The intervening years were D-heaven, right?
As Kylo Ren just said: "Leave the past behind. Kill it if you have to." ... so now we know why Obama didn't want to investigate Bush/Cheney crimes in 2009 ... he was planning his own crimes ... Uranium One, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, Hezbollah drug running (Iran relations), interfering in the 2016 election, and post election etc. Sorry, tearing down some old South statues isn't how you bury the past ... that was just virtue signaling while the other thug was out front keeping the get-away car hot.
Quote from: Baruch on December 20, 2017, 07:22:23 PM
"The gambling industry is not in any danger of going bankrupt."
Nore are statisticians ;-)
They don't need to be. Statistics explains why their games work, but they work regardless of your education.
Quote from: Baruch on December 20, 2017, 07:22:23 PM
I know what goes up, must come down. What more do I need to know about physics?
The Voyager probes, which went up by any sane definition of the word, have exceeded escape velocity and are never coming back and will not "come down" in any realistic sense, ever. "What goes up, must come down," only works for your bog-level understanding and aspirations.
Quote from: Baruch on December 21, 2017, 02:22:51 AM
As Kylo Ren just said: "Leave the past behind. Kill it if you have to." ... so now we know why Obama didn't want to investigate Bush/Cheney crimes in 2009 ... he was planning his own crimes ... Uranium One, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, Hezbollah drug running (Iran relations), interfering in the 2016 election, and post election etc. Sorry, tearing down some old South statues isn't how you bury the past ... that was just virtue signaling while the other thug was out front keeping the get-away car hot.
Unsubstantiated twaddle. Also, you have this distinct attitude of "You will never be better! Give up!" I will tell you now and forever:
NO. I will
not give up, because it's when you give up that you stop advancing and when you truly die. I'm sorry, sport, but I think that humanity's future lies beyond this mudball, and I will still work to get out there among the stars. I also think that humanity can be better than the apes we evolved from, and I will insist that we do better. Yes, even though I know that the universe will eventually run down and all life will eventually be snuffed out, that's still a long way off and there's plenty to do and see in the meantime.
So, Baruch, will you join me in life and advance, or will you stay where you are and truly die?
I bet I look more like Luke Skywalker (present version) than you do ;-) I understand this character, his many changes, his acceptance of fallibility. Do you accept fallibility, accept mortality? If not, you are more Christian than I am.
Quote from: Baruch on December 15, 2017, 05:36:22 PM
Actually two things in GR contradict conservation of mass-energy ... the Big Bang (and Inflation) and gravitational waves. The last couple of years, gravitational waves seem to be on firmer ground. So basically nothing is conserved, if you consider all possibilities .. the trick is that conservation is relative to the circumstances. In some, energy is conserved but mass is not, or mass is conserved and energy is not, or mass-energy is conserved except when it is not. It is best not to be too hung up on Newtonian alchemy and Revelations voodoo.
I think I recently read that on very tiny scales, near the Planck time, virtual particles can violate conservation laws. But I don't see how gravity waves or the big bang to have done so. The universe has been called (by Weinberg, I think) the ultimate free lunch. The positive and negative energies both contribute to the total mass/energy of the cosmos, but balance each other, so no net energy is actually in play.
P.S. -
Ah, I see it was Alan Guth, who said the universe is the ultimate free lunch, not Weinberg:
"It is said that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch."
as quoted by Stephen Hawking (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books. p. 129
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 22, 2017, 04:28:00 PM
I think I recently read that on very tiny scales, near the Planck time, virtual particles can violate conservation laws. But I don't see how gravity waves or the big bang to have done so. The universe has been called (by Weinberg, I think) the ultimate free lunch. The positive and negative energies both contribute to the total mass/energy of the cosmos, but balance each other, so no net energy is actually in play.
In another string, I quoted a grad school level discussion on this. It depends on your definition of mass-energy. You are using a non-standard definition yourself. And anyone who thinks they know what happens on Planck scales is lying.
P.S. -
Ah, I see it was Alan Guth, who said the universe is the ultimate free lunch, not Weinberg:
"It is said that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch."
as quoted by Stephen Hawking (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books. p. 129
In another string, I quoted a grad school level discussion on this. It depends on your definition of mass-energy. You are using a non-standard definition yourself. And anyone who thinks they know what happens on Planck scales is lying.
Quote from: Baruch on December 21, 2017, 05:34:29 PM
I bet I look more like Luke Skywalker (present version) than you do ;-) I understand this character, his many changes, his acceptance of fallibility. Do you accept fallibility, accept mortality? If not, you are more Christian than I am.
Yes, I accept both my fallibility and mortality, but I don't accept that humanity is irredeemable, because believing that is true makes it true.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 22, 2017, 10:51:36 PM
Yes, I accept both my fallibility and mortality, but I don't accept that humanity is irredeemable, because believing that is true makes it true.
Well that is magical thinking. And thinking that bullshit like redemption exists, makes you a Christian ;-)
The Leftist jihadis here, are just Islamists from a different mother.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 22, 2017, 10:51:36 PM
Yes, I accept both my fallibility and mortality, but I don't accept that humanity is irredeemable, because believing that is true makes it true.
My apologies, but that illogic makes me gag. Belief does not affect reality. But do apply that to the lottery. The State wants your money! And it will lower my taxes.
No, that's not nearly what I meant, and don't either of you pretend that it was. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy thing. If you believe yourself irredeemable, then you will (likely) behave in a manner that will make sure that you will never be redeemable, and therefore fulfill this prophesy as if it were a reality.
There are lots of concepts that have no reality apart from us, but we behave as if they do. Money is not real, but we behave as if it does, so you can't live in this society as if money has no reality because it does after a fashion, for it is through our actions that money makes itself felt on our reality. If we behave as if we do not have a future, then we will squander opportunity after opportunity that may present itself to escape that fate, thus we won't have a future â€" self-fulfuling prophesy, brought about through our actions.
So, yeah. Both of you, way to miss the point.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 24, 2017, 06:55:36 PM
No, that's not nearly what I meant, and don't either of you pretend that it was. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy thing. If you believe yourself irredeemable, then you will (likely) behave in a manner that will make sure that you will never be redeemable, and therefore fulfill this prophesy as if it were a reality.
There are lots of concepts that have no reality apart from us, but we behave as if they do. Money is not real, but we behave as if it does, so you can't live in this society as if money has no reality because it does after a fashion, for it is through our actions that money makes itself felt on our reality. If we behave as if we do not have a future, then we will squander opportunity after opportunity that may present itself to escape that fate, thus we won't have a future â€" self-fulfuling prophesy, brought about through our actions.
So, yeah. Both of you, way to miss the point.
So you are the "don't worry, be happy" guy? The power of positive thinking? Selling BitCoin?
Quote from: Cavebear on December 23, 2017, 04:02:53 PM
My apologies, but that illogic makes me gag. Belief does not affect reality. But do apply that to the lottery. The State wants your money! And it will lower my taxes.
You seem to take things a bit too literally, Fuzzy.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 25, 2017, 12:26:05 AM
You seem to take things a bit too literally, Fuzzy.
Religious and irreligious seem to have that same problem. Literalism means - I don't have to think about what I read.
Quote from: Baruch on December 24, 2017, 08:31:31 PM
So you are the "don't worry, be happy" guy? The power of positive thinking? Selling BitCoin?
Psychology, plus a bit of mental health. As someone who has been clinically depressed enough to require therapy and drugs, falling into ennui and hopelessness is the last thing I need. That's the mental health part. The psychology part is what I already explained: fortune favors the prepared mind â€" yeah, I know that's not exactly what Pasteur meant by the statement, but it fits.
Plus, I want humanity to reach the stars and become decently civilized doing so, and there's really no reason why anyone should want for anything in a truly galactic civilization â€" it's a big universe, even with some aliens, and we know how to harvest a great deal of its resources with
existing technology, let alone future technology. Even if I never see that day, I want that for humanity, because that's fucking awesome.
Dream big, and work towards that, because humanity never got anywhere being content with its lot. If I believed as you do that humanity will never break the cycle of savagery and be forever trapped on our little mud ball, then I will not be helping to solve those problems, but a contributor to them. That doesn't sit well with me.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 25, 2017, 06:37:27 PM
Psychology, plus a bit of mental health. As someone who has been clinically depressed enough to require therapy and drugs, falling into ennui and hopelessness is the last thing I need. That's the mental health part. The psychology part is what I already explained: fortune favors the prepared mind â€" yeah, I know that's not exactly what Pasteur meant by the statement, but it fits.
Plus, I want humanity to reach the stars and become decently civilized doing so, and there's really no reason why anyone should want for anything in a truly galactic civilization â€" it's a big universe, even with some aliens, and we know how to harvest a great deal of its resources with existing technology, let alone future technology. Even if I never see that day, I want that for humanity, because that's fucking awesome.
Dream big, and work towards that, because humanity never got anywhere being content with its lot. If I believed as you do that humanity will never break the cycle of savagery and be forever trapped on our little mud ball, then I will not be helping to solve those problems, but a contributor to them. That doesn't sit well with me.
I hope you are right. If we can harvest the resources of the universe and stay ahead of our collective small-mindedness, that would be wonderful.
But I fear we can't. Going to Mars is not like Europeans going to North American (or any of the many human migrations to more resource-rich places).
And if we do and travel far enough, we may sadly discover that we are the less-advanced ones someday and some civ only a few 10,000 years more advanced will knock us off like Pizarro did the Incans, only easier.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 26, 2017, 05:01:04 AM
I hope you are right. If we can harvest the resources of the universe and stay ahead of our collective small-mindedness, that would be wonderful.
But I fear we can't. Going to Mars is not like Europeans going to North American (or any of the many human migrations to more resource-rich places).
And if we do and travel far enough, we may sadly discover that we are the less-advanced ones someday and some civ only a few 10,000 years more advanced will knock us off like Pizarro did the Incans, only easier.
What, you don't like Star Wars? Are we Sith?
Quote from: Baruch on December 26, 2017, 08:37:28 AM
What, you don't like Star Wars? Are we Sith?
The odds of any 2 or more civs meeting in equality in space are between vanishingly-small to slim (and Slim just left town). If we meet any other species in space, they will be like australopithecines to us or we to them. There won't be a Federation struggling with Klingons or Romulans.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 26, 2017, 05:01:04 AM
I hope you are right. If we can harvest the resources of the universe and stay ahead of our collective small-mindedness, that would be wonderful.
But I fear we can't. Going to Mars is not like Europeans going to North American (or any of the many human migrations to more resource-rich places).
And if we do and travel far enough, we may sadly discover that we are the less-advanced ones someday and some civ only a few 10,000 years more advanced will knock us off like Pizarro did the Incans, only easier.
I would hope that if we meet a more advanced life form in space, they'll be above the pettiness of humans. They may see us as primitives, or perhaps as children in need of guidance. There are two ways I can conceive of a space-fairing race choosing to wipe us out. 1) They see us as a plague, and come to the conclusion that the universe is better off without us, or 2) their need for resources is growing faster than their supply, and removing us ensures their own survival. But my hopes would be that they would be peaceful beings who would share their knowledge with us, and help us improve as a species.
Quote from: Baruch on December 22, 2017, 10:55:10 PM
Well that is magical thinking.
Was Neitzche using magical thinking when he said that "The Christian decision to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad"?
I don't think so.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 23, 2017, 04:02:53 PM
Belief does not affect reality.
See my previous comment to Baruch.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 26, 2017, 11:37:37 AM
The odds of any 2 or more civs meeting in equality in space are between vanishingly-small to slim (and Slim just left town). If we meet any other species in space, they will be like australopithecines to us or we to them. There won't be a Federation struggling with Klingons or Romulans.
I have a notion (pure speculation - can't even call it a hypothesis) that there may well be an absolute limit to technological advancement, since the alternative is infinite technological advancement. If so, then it's conceivable that we will eventually reach that limit, as may other civilizations, and then if we were to meet them we'd be technological equals. Depends on when we meet, I suppose. Far enough in the future and it becomes more likely.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 26, 2017, 04:09:33 PM
I would hope that if we meet a more advanced life form in space, they'll be above the pettiness of humans. They may see us as primitives, or perhaps as children in need of guidance. There are two ways I can conceive of a space-fairing race choosing to wipe us out. 1) They see us as a plague, and come to the conclusion that the universe is better off without us, or 2) their need for resources is growing faster than their supply, and removing us ensures their own survival. But my hopes would be that they would be peaceful beings who would share their knowledge with us, and help us improve as a species.
Competition for resources seems likely to me, which would lead to a galactic natural selection process, where "reproduction" is the colonization of planets or larger regions of space. It seems to us, now, that there's a very large resource base out there, but remember, there are many billions of years in which a species would want to survive, so what seems like an over-abundance to us will eventually dwindle to seem much less abundant - just as has happened on Earth. It may be that travel to other galaxies is possible, but that seems unlikely to me, given the great distance to even the closest galaxy to us - over 2 million light years. How could even a very advanced civilization garner enough energy to get that far? Maybe I'm not enough of a visionary to see how, but I just don't. So we, and any others, may be stuck in this one little galaxy, which will eventually get short on supplies of resources.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 26, 2017, 04:09:33 PM
I would hope that if we meet a more advanced life form in space, they'll be above the pettiness of humans. They may see us as primitives, or perhaps as children in need of guidance. There are two ways I can conceive of a space-fairing race choosing to wipe us out. 1) They see us as a plague, and come to the conclusion that the universe is better off without us, or 2) their need for resources is growing faster than their supply, and removing us ensures their own survival. But my hopes would be that they would be peaceful beings who would share their knowledge with us, and help us improve as a species.
1. Likely
2. Unlikely ... we will have exhausted all the easy to get resources
3. You didn't number this ... that aliens are like Bernie ;-) ... zero chance of that, and if it did, Hillary would screw them
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 26, 2017, 04:35:59 PM
See my previous comment to Baruch.
Cavebear is a Platoist, and he thinks that The World of Forms favors Democrats ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 26, 2017, 04:34:19 PM
Was Neitzche using magical thinking when he said that "The Christian decision to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad"?
I don't think so.
Being thrown to the Gentiles (Jewish Messianics) or thrown to the Pagans (Gentile Messianics) was ugly and bad. But that then became obsolete thanks to Constantine and Theodosius. Nietzsche was pretty neo-pagan. But yes, people change reality, otherwise we would all be in the Stone Age.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 26, 2017, 04:45:58 PM
I have a notion (pure speculation - can't even call it a hypothesis) that there may well be an absolute limit to technological advancement, since the alternative is infinite technological advancement. If so, then it's conceivable that we will eventually reach that limit, as may other civilizations, and then if we were to meet them we'd be technological equals. Depends on when we meet, I suppose. Far enough in the future and it becomes more likely.
Punctuated equilibria ... you go ahead two steps, and fall back one step ... until you reach the ultimate limit. Consider globalization. We can only do that once. There is only one habitable planet. Earlier, globalization was sub-global ... like Europeans taking over the New World.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 26, 2017, 04:56:39 PM
Competition for resources seems likely to me, which would lead to a galactic natural selection process, where "reproduction" is the colonization of planets or larger regions of space. It seems to us, now, that there's a very large resource base out there, but remember, there are many billions of years in which a species would want to survive, so what seems like an over-abundance to us will eventually dwindle to seem much less abundant - just as has happened on Earth. It may be that travel to other galaxies is possible, but that seems unlikely to me, given the great distance to even the closest galaxy to us - over 2 million light years. How could even a very advanced civilization garner enough energy to get that far? Maybe I'm not enough of a visionary to see how, but I just don't. So we, and any others, may be stuck in this one little galaxy, which will eventually get short on supplies of resources.
The competition demographically is more than just humans. Also more than just technical civilization. Natural life style as found in non-human animals .. is sustainable, in a way that humans are not. Insects ... win the contest ... not necessarily space faring insects.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 26, 2017, 04:09:33 PM
I would hope that if we meet a more advanced life form in space, they'll be above the pettiness of humans. They may see us as primitives, or perhaps as children in need of guidance. There are two ways I can conceive of a space-fairing race choosing to wipe us out. 1) They see us as a plague, and come to the conclusion that the universe is better off without us, or 2) their need for resources is growing faster than their supply, and removing us ensures their own survival. But my hopes would be that they would be peaceful beings who would share their knowledge with us, and help us improve as a species.
but there is the possibility of them being so advanced that they destroy us unconsciously in the way that we step on ants or drown them watering our lawns.
Quote from: fencerider on December 27, 2017, 11:00:14 PM
but there is the possibility of them being so advanced that they destroy us unconsciously in the way that we step on ants or drown them watering our lawns.
I read a scifi story once where really giant robots (Optimus Prime would be tiny) landed in Arizona, and proceeded t spray for pests (humans).
Quote from: fencerider on December 27, 2017, 11:00:14 PM
but there is the possibility of them being so advanced that they destroy us unconsciously in the way that we step on ants or drown them watering our lawns.
Even in that case, we'd at least he alien ants to them. They would have to be at least a little curious about us.
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 28, 2017, 01:26:54 AM
Even in that case, we'd at least he alien ants to them. They would have to be at least a little curious about us.
Yeah, by shaking up the ant farm and destroying our tunnels!