Marriage is under fire!!

[Rich Grise]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

Not a chance in hell. God dosnt exist. Period.

You're pretty cock-sure of yourself here.

Did that come with a proof, like everything else in your universe,
or are you just taking it on faith?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

Heavens, I never implied anything like that. Science is great! Science
is, after all, the quest for knowledge. Ultimately, Science will get
to Ultimate Truth.

There is no Ultimate Truth.

One day, we'll have instruments sensitive enough
to detect things that we now deny the existence of.

And what would these things be that exist, that we deny?

Well, you won't know, until you heal the denial, will you?

Science Will find God, and Goddess,

Not a chance in hell. God dosnt exist. Period.

But two sentences ago, you said there _is_ no Ultimate Truth.
So, which of these? "Doesn't exist. Period" sounds kinda
ultimate to me.

CHeers!
Rich

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 12:17:48 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:48:09 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

To Kevin, if it's not something that he can clamp in a vise and
measure with a micrometer, it doesn't exist and is fantasy.

Natural facts are based on theory and result. If you have something
better with which to replace science, let's hear it.

Heavens, I never implied anything like that.

I wasn't sure.

Science is great!

The evidence of its fantastic success is manifest.

Science is, after all, the quest for knowledge.

No, it's not. That may be the motivations of you or me, but that's not science,
as I use the term. What I mean is the modern confluence of ideas that today is
the practice of science.

If it were just as you said, then anyone could say they are "doing science"
merely by questing for knowledge. But that's a very weak meaning to the word.
And one I won't accept or apply.

The process of science, as I mean it, is a human, objective practice that works
well with human limitations. It uses quantitative prediction and observation,
objective language sufficient for rigorous deductions, respect for the resulting
critical opinions of others, and the requirement for a consensus to develop.
But, and this is not to be taken lightly... It requires __all__ of these, not
just some.

By "objective language sufficient for rigorous deductions," I mean that any
theory must be crafted into language, sufficient that others can read and
interpret it and arrive at very similar understandings and to do so even when
separated by centuries of time and different cultures. This means that when I
take specified circumstances and make a deduction from theory on that basis,
that another person trained to read and interpret the language and looking at
the same theory and circumstances will also make the same deductions. When I
say "circle" (the locus of all points of equal radii from another point), it
means the same thing to me as it did to Euclid, roughly 2000 years ago.

Quantitative prediction is also a requirement. It's not enough to "explain."
You can give me any set of observations you want, a long or short list, a broad
or narrow set, and I can fit an arbitrary "explanation" to it on the spot. But
that's not science and it's not science theory. Theories are not explanations.
They are much more. One must be able to use them to make specific deductions
and then quantitative predictions and these predictions must be born out through
experimental result.

Prediction is key. Explanation alone is either trivial or else essentially
irrelevant.

Being willing to face all __informed__ detractors squarely and dealing with
their objections is also critical. it takes time for others to verify
deductions and experimental results and it's important to deal with difficulties
they raise. This process takes time. More, it takes time for those informed
groups and individuals to arrive at a consensus. This process must be allowed
to play out. It helps protect against (1) lack of comprehensive analysis, (2)
outright fraud, (3) bias in various forms, (4) experimental error, and so on.

Science is NOT just the "quest for knowledge." To trivialize the process in
this manner is to distort the whole idea into something entirely unrecognizable
as science and to conflate it with a great many rather useless human endeavors
(from the point of view of predicting nature.)

Ultimately, Science will get to Ultimate Truth.

Where in the heck did you get this idea?? That's a religious concept, Rich.
What we can do is make theory more broadly applied, while not losing predictive
power or make theory more predictive, while not broadening its reach, or both.
But none of this says anything about ultimate truths. Such ideas are left for
philosophers to bandy about.

Imagine us humans as being in a dark cave, Rich. We cannot see, but we can feel
with our hands. As we reach out our hands and touch the cave wall surface, we
"sense" a texture. We set out to describe what we sense to each other, we
fabricate tools out of ideas we can jointly communicate (straight edge, circle,
point, etc.) and we fashion increasingly complex tools to allow us to more
quickly move from area to area as we investigate and map the walls. We can
develop predictive theories about what to expect in various circumstances, as
well. And as we develop these, we find them useful.

But does any of this tells us anything about what's behind the walls? The
important details of what's deeper than just at the interaction surface? No.
We can chip away at the wall and see what we see below. But again, all we have
is the interactions to observe, not the "ultimate reality" of it. Our
predictive tools can be incredibly precise and work almost flawlessly and still,
we do not necessarily know anything about the ultimate reality here.

Science is about prediction, not ultimate truths. You can believe we understand
some ultimate truth from the facts of science, but that's your belief. As far
as science is concerned, if someone comes up with a "Theory of Loki" that
predicts far better than existing theories in some area, it will replace them as
it becomes clear (through consensus) that it works better. It could be an
entirely new point of view, too. Would this mean it is closer to the "ultimate
truth?" No. Just better at prediction.

Leave "ultimate truths" to the religious and to the peripatetic philosophers of
the age.

One day, we'll have instruments sensitive enough
to detect things that we now deny the existence of.

Nothing has meaning without theory. Without theory, in fact, you'd be unable to
see that the Earth is round even given adequate data. We can only "see" through
the use of theory. And yes, instruments will be designed in the future that
will depend on better theory and will, because of this, provide better precision
in quantitative result.

So?

Science Will find God, and Goddess, for that matter, or it ain't
science.

I rather doubt it, as "god or goddess" is a rapidly receding concept. In a
sense, as the light of science continues to expose more areas of nature, we
continue to see no such agent. Such superstitious beliefs have had to continue
scurrying for increasingly distant corners that the light of science hasn't yet
reached in order to cower and survive.

Regarding the idea of a __personal__ god, which is almost certainly disproven by
now Einstein writes (taking from a collection I have here called "Out of My
Later Years" in chapter 8, on science and religion):

"To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events
could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can
always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet
been able to set foot. But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the
representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a
doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in the clear light but only in the
dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to
human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion
must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give
up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the
hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those
forces which are capable of cultivating the good, the true, and the beautiful in
humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more
worthy task."

I like the way he puts that.

Belief in god(s) is without any theory to give it meaning, so far as I've seen.
These claims all seem to be invulnerable to natural examination. But this
doesn't mean they are true. It just means that they are meaningless -- they
aren't about the natural world.

If they were about nature, then it would have to follow that it is conceivable
to find evidence some day that would disprove them. But the conclusion is
already known to these believers, as a given, and nothing conceivable could ever
disprove their claims. Evidence that does exist in the natural world doesn't
matter to their claims. So it would be pointless to even examine the evidence,
because again the conclusion is already known. And we are back full-circle.

Again, this doesn't mean the claim is true. It just means that the claim isn't
about the natural world.

It is logically impossible for any claim to be true no matter what. For every
true claim, you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim untrue
- or, every true claim is falsifiable. God claims I've read so far are instead
simply meaningless because they aren't willing to say what they mean! In short,
they are the "undeclared claims" I mentioned before, where any evidence is taken
as being congruent, no matter what.

If you want to improve the situation here, if you want science to have something
to say on the subject, then you will need to make "god" be about the natural
world. You will need to put theoretical language to it, make it quantitative,
make it testable, make it predict. There are areas where it may be possible to
make some inroads here -- but I'm not imaginative enough to tell you where. So
far, all I've seen on the subject is vacuous and meaningless claims without
value.

Anything that you think you know to be absolutely immutable, proven
fact is probably wrong.

You are trying to lend strength to ideas that are weak, by claiming that other
ideas are all in the same bag, Rich. But as I say sometimes, "while we are all
equally entitled to an opinion, that doesn't mean that all opinions is equal."

You are suggesting here that science fact is "probably wrong." You bolster your
point my implying that these are "absolutely immutable," so that we all agree
with you (almost viscerally.) But this is strawman arguments. No one has said
science fact is absolutely immutable. So your circumlocution doesn't apply, at
all. Your logic is flawed and your conclusion is unsound.

More, there is no meaning to "wrong." If you mean "less predictive," then of
course. But I think you meant this in some absolutist sense. But I'll tell you
that absolutist thinking is the thinking of the religious. And it will lead you
astray. You need to know what you know and know its limitations, where it
applies and where it does not. We humans are not competent at all to think
about absolutes --- we quite simply lack the perspective.

And a closed mind is about the least scientific instrument in the Known Universe.

An irrelevant point, as well.

Minds should be open. But as they say, not so open they leak all over the
place. I might claim there is a purple poka-dotted monster eating up the
universe, but I certainly don't expect you to be open-minded about the idea
unless I present a comprehensive, thorough, well-defended through experiment,
set of results for you to examine. Until I carry my burden in this, you are
right to remain closed to the idea.

Like I said, although we are all equally entitled to our opinions, this does not
mean that all our opinions are equally strong.

Again, you conflate too many things together in this comment. There is a
difference between informed opinion suggesting that a proposition is most likely
incorrect, given the carefully examined lack of weight in its favor and the
great weight against it, and just being mindlessly closed to ideas.

Peace,
Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:49:17 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

Not a chance in hell. God dosnt exist. Period.

You're pretty cock-sure of yourself here.

Did that come with a proof, like everything else in your universe,
or are you just taking it on faith?

No, it's just the recognition that claims of god are, so far, nothing different
from claims of purple poka-dotted monsters eating the universe -- undeclared.
There is no need to even bother giving the time of day to folks making such
claims and when they cannot be bothered to do the diligence required to present
their own gosh-darned case!

Present a theory from which deductions can be arrived at by others, support it
with affirmative supporting evidence from experimental result, show how there is
a relative lack of disconfirming evidence, show how you have made an honest,
comprehensive survey of evidence, and you might be taken seriously.

But why should anyone else be bothered to do your work for you? It's your
claim.

It's quite normal and ordinary to ignore undeclared and comprehensively
unsupportable claims as silly and inane. If you put some meat on this idea and
make a strong case for it, I suspect it wouldn't be anything like the undeclared
claims I've seen so far. But I'm not holding my breath, Rich.

Peace,
Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 18:10:09 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

But two sentences ago, you said there _is_ no Ultimate Truth.
So, which of these? "Doesn't exist. Period" sounds kinda
ultimate to me.

No, it's just another way of saying you haven't done your work.

Ho-hum stuff, you know.

Peace,
Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

Science answers much more modest and pedestrian questions, Rich, that you appear
to be asking of it. Stop trying to force it to address the "really big
questions." That kind of stuff is the meat and potatoes of religion and
philosophy, not science.


On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:47:14 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

OK, fair enough. Now, what's powering this machine?

What's powering quantum mechanics? Searching for the meaning behind things is
natural for us humans, of course. And sometimes, this search for meaning can
yield imaginative results that inspire new theory. But this question sounds
more a philosophical or religious one.

What's motivating it?

The question assumes facts not in evidence, Rich.

What rule accounts for consciousness?

What do you mean by consciousness? Define it in clear, objective language so
that others can make specific deductions to specific situations from it.

Can you write your own transfer function?

Hmm?

Jon

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:50:20 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

There is no Ultimate Truth.

---
Is that the ultimate truth?

--
John Fields

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 14:05:39 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 13:50:20 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:


There is no Ultimate Truth.

---
Is that the ultimate truth?

No, but it's sure a good way to avoid responsibility.

John

 

[Rich Grise]

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

Science answers much more modest and pedestrian questions, Rich, that you
....
What rule accounts for consciousness?

What do you mean by consciousness? Define it in clear, objective language
so that others can make specific deductions to specific situations from
it.

Actually, that was kinda my point. You can't define it in clear, objective
language. According to what's-his-name's philosophy of deterministic
randomness, that means there can't even _be_ any such thing, which is
patently ludicrous.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 17:49:17 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

Not a chance in hell. God dosnt exist. Period.

You're pretty cock-sure of yourself here.

Did that come with a proof, like everything else in your universe,
or are you just taking it on faith?

No, it's just the recognition that claims of god are, so far, nothing
different from claims of purple poka-dotted monsters eating the universe
-- undeclared. There is no need to even bother giving the time of day to
folks making such claims and when they cannot be bothered to do the
diligence required to present their own gosh-darned case!

How do you know that there _aren't_ purple poka[sic]-dotted monsters eating
the universe? Just because I've never seen you in the flesh doesn't prove
that you don't exist. I could claim "Johathan Kirwan does not exist. It
is merely a turing machine running on a Z-8 somewhere." Or, heaven forbid,
some troll spoofing as you. ;-)

What happens to the atheists when they're met by St. Peter at the pearly
gates? ;-)

I don't remember which philosopher said it - something about it's impossible
to prove whether there is or isn't a god, but if I act like there isn't and
there is, I'm in a Hell of a lot more trouble than if I act like there is
and there isn't.

Cheers!
Rich

Peace,
Jon

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:31:49 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

What happens to the atheists when they're met by St. Peter at the pearly
gates? ;-)

---
They'll find out what "Ooops" is all about?

--
John Fields

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:12:33 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

Science answers much more modest and pedestrian questions, Rich, that you
...
What rule accounts for consciousness?

What do you mean by consciousness? Define it in clear, objective language
so that others can make specific deductions to specific situations from
it.

Actually, that was kinda my point. You can't define it in clear, objective
language. According to what's-his-name's philosophy of deterministic
randomness, that means there can't even _be_ any such thing, which is
patently ludicrous.

Good Luck!
Rich

I think there's a deep connection between consciousness and quantum
mechanics. And it's interesting that most quantum effects simply can't
be described in English, because, at the macroscopic or rational
levels, many quantum effects make no sense at all: they just are.

John

 

[Robert C Monsen]

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
newspwTc.6373$SC1.5574@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...

I don't remember which philosopher said it - something about it's
impossible
to prove whether there is or isn't a god, but if I act like there
isn't and
there is, I'm in a Hell of a lot more trouble than if I act like
there is
and there isn't.

You might be thinking about "Pascal's Wager"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/#4

However, the real argument isn't whether god exists. The real issue is
whether, if she exists, she cares whether we worship her. Science, and
the hypothesized existence of 125 billion galaxies in the universe,
makes it hard to believe that she could care about whether little
Johnny wins the little league championship. Even the existence of 6.45
billion humans makes this a difficult thing to believe.

However, its fun to note that, given these estimates, there are about
20 galaxies for each human on the planet... I'm gonna start naming
mine right away...

----
Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Rich Grise]

Robert C Monsen wrote:

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
[blahblahblah]

You might be thinking about "Pascal's Wager"

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/#4

However, the real argument isn't whether god exists. The real issue is
whether, if she exists, she cares whether we worship her. Science, and
the hypothesized existence of 125 billion galaxies in the universe,
makes it hard to believe that she could care about whether little
Johnny wins the little league championship. Even the existence of 6.45
billion humans makes this a difficult thing to believe.

Well, there is that one book that's real popular, that I've heard

has some passage to the effect of "every sparrow that falls..."

Of course, sparrows are easy - it doesn't specifically say if She
cares about humans, does it? They can be terribly annoying at times,
you know. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:12:33 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
Science answers much more modest and pedestrian questions, Rich, that
you
What rule accounts for consciousness?
What do you mean by consciousness? Define it in clear, objective
language so that others can make specific deductions to specific
situations from it.
Actually, that was kinda my point. You can't define it in clear, objective
language. According to what's-his-name's philosophy of deterministic
randomness, that means there can't even _be_ any such thing, which is
patently ludicrous.

I think there's a deep connection between consciousness and quantum
mechanics. And it's interesting that most quantum effects simply can't
be described in English, because, at the macroscopic or rational
levels, many quantum effects make no sense at all: they just are.

By Jove, I think he's got it!


Rich

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:49:18 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:12:33 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
Science answers much more modest and pedestrian questions, Rich, that
you
What rule accounts for consciousness?
What do you mean by consciousness? Define it in clear, objective
language so that others can make specific deductions to specific
situations from it.
Actually, that was kinda my point. You can't define it in clear, objective
language. According to what's-his-name's philosophy of deterministic
randomness, that means there can't even _be_ any such thing, which is
patently ludicrous.

I think there's a deep connection between consciousness and quantum
mechanics. And it's interesting that most quantum effects simply can't
be described in English, because, at the macroscopic or rational
levels, many quantum effects make no sense at all: they just are.

By Jove, I think he's got it!


Rich

Well, it is pretty obvious.

John

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:31:49 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

-dotted monsters eating
the universe?

I don't. But I'm not going to listen to some idiot telling me they do exist,
where that same idiot cannot be bothered to present a clear, evidential case
with support that is commensurate with the unusual nature of the claim.

If I claim that it rained yesterday and the circumstances of the discussion
don't suggest some hidden agenda and if you also know I live in Oregon (where in
my area I get about 65 inches a year, spread out equally each day) then you
would probably believe me without any additional evidence beyond my casual
testimony. Ordinary evidence is sufficient for ordinary claims.

But if I claimed there some Martian took me to Mars in the dark of night and
performed bizarre experiments on me and then brought me back here, you might
quite reasonably expect a little more than my testimony. Even if I'm such a
nice guy, and all. Extraordinary evidential support is needed for such
extraordinary claims. Quite reasonably.

So do I listen to someone telling me about those purple monsters? Not unless
they do their diligence to make their case, first. Until then, I slam the door
in their face and I do so, with malice aforethought. If the person who is
making the claim cannot be bothered to do the work needed to make their case,
why should I stupidly pick up some shovel to start carrying their dirt for them
(either -for- or -against- their claim?)

It's a simply matter of expediency. I have a limited time in my life and I have
limited resources. if I allowed every nutcase in the world to push their ideas
without support and then foolishly picked up the challenge to try and discredit
their points, I wouldn't have any life left. And in any case, they'd just
ignore me and that hard work and then go find someone else to pester.

The proper course here is to simply insist that a comprehensive case be made and
that if that case isn't manifest, then the door is slammed on their face.

I've an open mind, Rich. But it's not open to those who are too lazy to carry
their own water.

Just because I've never seen you in the flesh doesn't prove
that you don't exist. I could claim "Johathan Kirwan does not exist. It
is merely a turing machine running on a Z-8 somewhere." Or, heaven forbid,
some troll spoofing as you. ;-)

Actually, it may be. So?

What happens to the atheists when they're met by St. Peter at the pearly
gates? ;-)

Never crossed my mind to ask. I'll try and think about it exactly when you are
able to convince me it's a likely event.

I don't remember which philosopher said it - something about it's impossible
to prove whether there is or isn't a god, but if I act like there isn't and
there is, I'm in a Hell of a lot more trouble than if I act like there is
and there isn't.

Pascal's wager.

But you can think about this in a dozen ways.

One is to then ponder: "One must act as though all such systems are true, so
that one avoids all manner of trouble." But then some of those faiths will tell
you that this duplicitous behavior will just get you condemned, too. So then
you are left with the quandary of deciding which of these Easter Bunny fairy
tales all preaching your damnation forever should get your sycophantic
adherence. And no matter which one you pick, Murphy's Law will ensure it's not
the right one.

Anyway, it's all just stupid. What god in their sane mind would condemn poor
people with inferior minds for not picking the exact right hen scratches to
perform at midnight, for gosh sake? None I'd care to know. And I cannot
imagine why anyone else would be foolish enough to imagine that such a god is
worth a dime, let alone caring about, if so.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:47:55 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

Well, there is that one book that's real popular, that I've heard
has some passage to the effect of "every sparrow that falls..."
Of course, sparrows are easy - it doesn't specifically say if She
cares about humans, does it? They can be terribly annoying at times,
you know. ;-)

Good reply from a religious point of view, Rich. "If I hear the final cry of
every sparrow that falls in death, would I not hear you?" This does NOT say
that the final cry of sparrows are heard, only that __if__ they are heard...
then... Could be perfectly consistent that no sparrow is heard and neither are
humans. But of course, this also presupposes there is any "I" alluded to in any
of those variously edited collections and that this "I" said anything of the
sort.

It was almost universally popular to believe the world was at the center of the
universe. Popularity is irrelevant to science fact. Just as certain popular
books are.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:12:33 GMT, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

Actually, that was kinda my point. You can't define it in clear, objective
language.

There are those working to change this, regarding consciousness. I believe
there are regular world meetings on this subject in Phoenix (if memory serves)
and sometimes elsewhere, in fact, trying to deal with this issue with precision.

But the fact that we don't know everything today doesn't bother me at all.
We're just human, after all. I don't think you can conclude anything from our
lack of knowledge. Only perhaps from what little hard-won science knowledge
we've managed to accrue.

According to what's-his-name's philosophy of deterministic
randomness, that means there can't even _be_ any such thing, which is
patently ludicrous.

Some comments:

(1) We don't have "what's-his-name" here to make the arguments and you have no
position (in my mind) to put words into the mouth of anyone other than yourself.

(2) Even if you were right in interpreting what some person might say about
this subject on the basis of some philosophy, it's irrelevant to science fact.
The force of human opinion has no effect on Nature.

and,

(3) Well, Rich, we read from great minds... not for what they say they
believe... but to learn how they think about the world. Every great person (and
this means the rest of us lesser people, too) believes a great many wrong
things. But great minds remain worth your study.

So I've no real idea what point you are reaching with this comment.

Jon