OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?

[Al]

In article <MPG.1ada1028d272733a989714@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:

In article <no.spam-773A6C.11463004042004@news.verizon.net>,
no.spam@here.com says...
In article <MPG.1ad8d1cda602d803989705@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:

In article <CkWVfqBhembAFwAm@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...
I read in sci.electronics.design that KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote
(in <MPG.1ad7ffc7208e43859896fc@news1.news.adelphia.net&gt about 'OT: Why
are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Fri, 2 Apr 2004:
...thus you "observed" the door (consciously or unconsciously,
depending on the velocity of impact). QED

Ah, so an attosecond before impact it wasn't there. Where was it, then,
and how did it get into position? Can cupboard doors predict where they
will need to be in the future?

Sure. They'll be in your way. ...never saw a tree jump out in
front of a car?

Have you been reading "Scientific American" lately?

Nah. I gave up reading that rag when they (should have) changed
their name to Pseudo-Scientific American.

It recently had
articles in it about string theory, multiple universes and the like.
Sounds a lot like science fiction to me. At any rate, all things are
possible as infinite multiple universes are possible. Somewhere a tree
DID jump in front of a car.

Anything is possible when you create your own religion. ;-)

Amen!

I read a lot of it for laughs now.

Al

--
There's never enough time to do it right the first time.......

 

[Terry Given]

"John Woodgate" <jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote in message
news:FDukWYCElRaAFwbF@jmwa.demon.co.uk...

I read in sci.electronics.design that Terry Given <the_domes@xtra.co.nz
wrote (in <5S4ac.4479$Tf3.73375@news.xtra.co.nz&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Tue, 30 Mar 2004:
this is of course the well known "two-legged existence theorem." It is
equally worthless to be "amazed" that both our legs reach all the way up
to
our hips.......
Indeed; since they are joined on they must reach. But what IS amazing is
that they both reach the ground.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.

touche.

"I've got two legs from my hips to the ground, and
when I move them they walk around, and
when I lift them they climb the stairs, and
when I chave them they 'ain't got hairs......

 

[Mark Fergerson]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote (in <gLkbc.68289$1I5.16293@fed1read01&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Fri, 2 Apr 2004:

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote (in <vrZac.68053$1I5.12185@fed1read01&gt about 'OT: Why are
Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu, 1 Apr 2004:

The difference between science and everything else is that science includes a
mechanism for the falsification of its precepts and conclusions, and
enthusiastically applies that mechanism at every opportunity.

Doesn't it share that property with mathematics?

No. Mathematics is built on axioms which are not to be
questioned.

It was the questioning of Euclid's Fifth that led to non-Euclidean
geometries. The questioning of axioms in mathematics IS a bit different
from questioning precepts in science, but not very greatly different.

It's very different IMNSHO. Mathematics has been called a
"pure science" but I don't think it's a science at all; it
cannot include a falsification mechanism similar to that in
the Scientific Method commonly called "Appeal to Experiment"
because there is no Mathematical Reality against which we
can compare mathematical abstractions. The best we can do is
to try to apply mathematical methods to analyzing data about
Reality to see if those methods do an adequate job of
modeling the data. Yet every time we turn around data are
found that don't fit into the models.

If you disagree, tell me how to derive the values of G,
h, and c from mathematical First Principles. The Standard
Model can't do it, even though we know them to ridiculous
precision. It can't even fit them together coherently;
Relativity makes one set of assumptions about their values,
QM another, yet both make extremely accurate predictions
using those incompatible assumptions.

FTM look how long it took for non-Euclidean geometry to
happen, compared with the change from Newton to Einstein.

Mathematics isn't bound to this Universe, so axioms can be adopted (or
challenged) in ways that would be analogous to postulating Universes in
which the laws of physics are different. Well, that's been done often
enough; it's called 'science fiction' and the best of has a fair track
record of predictions.

Well, that kind of SF is written by scientists in their
off-hours, and I don't know of any that have been proven
correct, though Marvin Minsky said that the 6-dimensional
k-spatial physics of Hogan's _Genesis Machine_ "might really
work".

Science questions everything, and occasionally
questioning conclusions brings you around to questioning
your precepts. Did you miss the advent of Quantum Mechanics?

Yes. I was born about 30 years too late.

Point was that it was the piled up data that didn't fit
into then-current theory that made QM possible by
re-examining the basics of the theory.

In Mathematics that can't happen. Non-Euclidean geometry
does not invalidate Euclidean geometry the way Relativity
invalidates Newton.

My guess is that a large proportion of working engineers would have
difficulty in determining whether the hypothesis' proposed in articles
published in their technical journals are falsifiable or statistically
testable as written. The result is that sometimes "fad" science ends
up being used or designed into products.

"Would have difficulty in" is not the same as "are fundamentally incapable
of" or "are forbidden by their philosophy from".

Quite right.

The required tools and the
knowledge of how to use them are freely available.

Well, no. The testing may in fact be very far indeed from easy. In the
field of audio reproduction, it turns out that what appears to be a very
simple thing, the measurement of the frequency response of a pair of
headphones, is in fact extremely difficult.

But not something engineers are "fundamentally incapable
of" or "forbidden by their philosophy from" doing. The mere
fact that the difficulties are known is a partial
demonstration that it's possible.

I don't follow that. The difficulties are known because of failures. Can
repeated failure prove that something is possible?

It can, as I said below, demonstrate that the wrong
questions are being asked. Frinst, are _all_ the acoustic
properties of the listener's ears and other assorted aural
hardware (from itty-bitty bones to ganglia and cortexes)
being taken into account? If so, how were they modeled? What
incorrent assumptions are included in the models?

Actually attempting such
things can point out more difficulties, and determining
their natures brings a solution closer.

Well, maybe not. So far, the headphone problem is in the 'too difficult'
file because the results can't be filtered for physical differences in
people's ears and perceptual differences in their brains.

That's why "generic" ears and brains are used in the
models. But how accurate are those models? Exactly where and
how widely do individual people vary from the generics?

It can also
demonstrate that the question being asked is the wrong one,
which happens a lot in science.

Yes, that can happen. I don't think it applies to the headphone problem,
though.

I do, but that's just me. So many projects, so little time.

Something even more difficulty is determining the bandwidth *really*
required for the correct reproduction of music. The 'DC to light' people
have just made an 'act of faith' that more bandwidth is better. The true
science is incredibly complex, and is certainly not yet fully
understood.

Yet we keep trying. Why? Because we're not satisfied with
the "Because I Said So" Golden Ears types who would turn
audio engineering into a religion, with themselves as
Arbiters of Truth.

Sure.

Then ask yourself if you think the headphone problem is
solvable. If you don't think so, you have no choice but to
accept the Pronouncements of the Golden Ears. If you do, why
do you think it hasn't been solved?

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Kevin Aylward]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:




We see the universe through our self-centered eyes, but the "I AM",
consciousness, is not the center of the universe.
------------------
Of course it is, it is the ONLY manner in which ANY Being, Ever, and
in Any Universe will Ever exist,

Oh dear, you missed it...

...Can ever be *known* to exist.
----------------------
Same thing, existence is ONLY being known to exist.

Nope.

and thus the ONLY way that ANYTHING
can exist.

No. We don't know. Whether or not entities exist without any
conscious observers is not provably, one way or the other.
--------------
Stating that something exists without beintg perceived is nonsense,
thus untrue.

Nope. This does not logical follow.

However, evidence
strongly suggests that entities do indeed exist without conscious
observation, there is *no* evidence that this is not the case.
---------------
Insufficient. All possible ridiculous things do NOT magically exist
just because no one perceives them.

No one is suggesting this at all. There is extensive evidence that
objects exist when no one is observing them. To suggest that they
disappear, and then come back once someone looks at them, is pretty
daft.

You could say the IDEA that they
might exist does exist, but then that is itself a perception of
mental process.


For
example, we know, absolutely, that the results of the double slit
experiment do not depend on whether there is a physicist in the room
watching, or outside having a smoke.
----------------------
If you have instruments that report, then the perception exists only
as the report to the experimenter, and only there and then.

The simplest assumption is that objects don't come and go as people
observe them. It makes no sense that buildings and such like are a
function of consciousness. Whose consciousness is it dependant on, you
or them?

No one will be able to agree on the facts, that is a conscious created
reality immediately leads to experimental contradictions. When you
arrive at a building, the occupants will tell you that the building was
there before you saw it. You wuld disagree.

Look, dude this is so trivial as to be pointless in discussing.
Essentially, all who truly believe that things around them are generated
just for their benefit, are mentally ill. You know, the tv talks to them
sort of thing.

An individual,
in principle, can generate a *random* response, i.e. one unrelated to
any previous inputs if QM is correct.
---------------------
Nonsense, that's NOT what QM says at ALL!

Clearly you no little about QM.

It merely says that many
worlds exist in which different things occur, but we have never lived
in more than one of them, finally.

QM says no such thing whatsoever. There are some metaphysical add on
baggage that is often presented in bantam paperbacks, and fed to the
masses on commercial news programs on many universes. However, this is
pure speculation, and not required in QM.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/quantummechanics/index.html

It merely says that statistical measurement of multiple event data
sets is impossible to show to be different than what we have called
random,

Agreed.

but of course chaos theory shows there is NO such thing as
any actual "randomness" anyway, and CANNOT be.

Nope. QM is king. Chaos theory is based on classical physics, and
therefore says nothing about whether or not there is true randomness.
You seem pretty clueless on this stuff, so why do you bother? Chaos
theory is based on the idea that given a small input error, than the
output error from this error can be enormous. QM states that even with
perfect input knowledge, the output is not deterministic.

The same thing in
this one "world" CANNOT occur other than it does, only multiple
DIFFERENT events in the SAME universe can do that! Cause and effect
is immutably preserved.

We don't know that this is true. This is only a conjecture. According to
*standard* QM, this is *not* the case. However, I agree that, in
principle, it may be that quantum randomness is not truly random, but
just a very good approximation.

However, the individual has no
control over this response as it is random.
-------------------
That's your error in understanding QM and the meaning of "random".

Yeah, right on dude. Its clear that you don't know even the basics of
QM. Ok, I'm no expert, but I got a B in my M.S. Physics Quantum
Mechanics class, what did you get?

There is NO randomness in the "world" we finally inhabit at long
last, the life we experience is one long world in which one and
only one cause and effect happens exactly.

This is just something you believe because you have been brought up to
believe it. The evidence strongly suggest that this is not the way the
universe works.

Your sort of confusion
occurs when you assume that datasets of ideal experiments that are
all actually different events happening either elsewhen or elsewhere
apart can be intermixed statistically and show some "randomness",
and they cannot!

Individual photons are measured, and travel a path that is, apparently,
random. i.e create a diffraction pattern that builds up over time.
Please provide a direct casual explanation of such single photon
patterns.

So the point you are making
that an individual has no ultimate control appears to be correct,
however, this not does imply that any responses are strictly casual
from the effect of others.
--------------------------
Not casual, causal!
They are entirely caused by previous externally originated events in
your life. You are nothing without having been caused to come into
being by a series of perceived events that entirely form what you
are and what you do exactly, that is, as exactly as exactness exists!

Again, your argument is based on simple assertion. Its just somthing you
have faith in as being true. Thats the point of QM, this common
assumption, held by all for 1000's of years, doesn't appear to be the
case. We have moved on from this naive view of the universe.

Present your *proof* that every effect has a direct cause. No one has
yet gave a convincing argument as to why photons in a double-slit
experiment produce the patter that they do.

If you COULD you could
voluntarily change your belief that you were elsewhere and be so!!

We did not invent our thoughts,
no more than we invented our brains.
--------------------------
Nor do we control ourselves, "Free Will" is a myth!

I agree, in principle, but it is still more subtle than it appears.
We can simply define free will as that response that is not
deterministically related to its inputs, and according to QM, this is
possible.
-------------------------------
No, not other than statistically, and life does NOT occur as a dataset
of the behaviors of the SAME "World" being "re-run" over and over the
same instant in time to derive a blurry dispersed dataset that
contains randomness!!!


http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/specialreplicators.html
-----------------------
This is unrelated and misapplied.

Oh...

You simply said that what we call
cause and effect can be called "Free Will" merely because you seem

Nope. Quite the opposite. I stated that "Free Will" was defined as an
output not deterministically related to any inputs. This is complete
contrary to cause and effect. It certainly shows that you cant
understand even basic English, so why this conversation is anyone's
guess.

to need one so badly and are deluded into believing so by your
culture!

What are you on about. Simply clueless. I don't need free will. Its not
a matter of belief at all. I identified a *rational* *definition* of
free will. This definition is purely *objective*, based on the facts. I
also made it clear that such a definition was hardly a case to claim
that there was a real "I".

On the contrary to your claim, I have made much effort identifying why
we are nothing more than blind machines, with true "I" existing
whatsoever. What part of "The Mean Meme-Gene Darwinian" did you not
understand?

However... I'm still investigating whether or not there is still a
fundamental flaw in this argument of no true self control. The
argument is based on extending the physics of non complex systems to
complex systems. The basic issue is that conscious is not derivable
from physics
(http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/thehardproblem.html), it is
simply an aspect of complex systems, so this argumant fails.
-----------------
Whatever physics consciousness cannot be derived from is not actual
physics, by reason that we exist.

?

Since this is the
case, they may be other properties of complex systems that are
similarly non-derivable. It may be that we simple have to take as a
new, nonderivable axiom, that there is an entity that can make
independent decisions based on the obvious evidence that this seems
to be a very good approximation for what we actually observe.
---------------------
Why are you so devoted to there being some form of independence to
the origin of thoughts and actions, are you resentful that you're not
solely responsible for your talents, or afraid that others will use
this cause to try to justify crimes?

Again, your politics show through your bias. Your completely out to
lunch on this. Look dude, I have made *extensive* arguments that suggest
that there is no real "I" that has any say in what we think we think do
and say. It is quite the opposite of your claims. My whole set of
papers, http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html, is,
essentially, evidence *against* the view that that there is an "I"
*responsible* for its own actions. I specifically point out,
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/intelligence.html that Electronic
Engineer is no more than a Darwinian Machine, and as such all my best
ideas are nothing more than tossing a coin.

I understand what your point of view is an order of magnitude more depth
than you do. You don't have any basis for you belief, other than faith.
The issue here, is whether or not here is something more going on that
is not deducible from known logic. To wit, "a good scientist presents
arguments to support his view, a better scientist presents evidence to
refute his views".

Your view is based on classical ideas. This inherently requires that
physics be complete. That is, all that can be known, is derivable from
what is already known. You need to remove your mental straight jacket
and ask the question, "how do I know that an emergent property, not
derivable from its parts does not exist?". I have shown that
consciousness is not derivable, therefore what else about consciousness
is not derivable?

I don't know the answer, but I don't make faith based claims, as you do,
as to what the answer is. I make both pro and con arguments,
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/consciousness.html. This is what we
scientists do.

The actual nature of independence
is meaningless anyway, it gets you nothing, they don't give a prize
for it! That you are caused feels no different than if you flipped
some coin internally anyway, merely because you choose to take credit
for it! What purpose does some imagined "independence" serve? I see
no usefulness to it.

Your preaching to te converted dude,
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/consciousness.html, however,
whether or not it turns out that there is a "useful purpose" is a matter
of investigating, not faith.

Is there something WRONG with all events in a
closed universe not being entirely interlocked with the occurences
within it??? I don't see what you are trying to gain by your wild
gymnastics here.

Your so obsessed with your bigoted views that you cant even see when
arguments are presented that back them up. If you actually understood
what I have wrote, this would be trivially clear.

If we accept that QM
allows an entity to produce non deterministic outputs, how can this
entity, in principle, be distinguished from an entity that we refer
to as an "I".

Kevin Aylward
------------------------
That point has been made over and over by pop-physics authors who
have abyssmally misapplied the physics, as some way to retain the
religious fiction of free will and guilt and blame so they can feel
justified in punishing people,

Maybe they do, but it doesn't logically follow in the slightest.

It matters not the slightest whether people are truly responsible for
their actions or not, we have to treat them as if they are. If we didn't
society would collapse. We cant let people go around indiscriminately
shooting people. Its truly that simple.

but that has many times been refuted
by the actual physicists who can see that MWI is actually the best
fit

Nonsense. Many physicists consider MWI complete drivel. It has zero
experimental support.

and that all events are quite obviously caused, or else physics
doesn't work. Now which are you?

Its an open question as to whether or not all events are caused. All
laws have exceptions...The obvious argument against everything is
caused, is the universe itself. Either it has been here all the time, or
it has not. If it has existed for all time, it was not caused. If it
came into existence, what caused it to come into existence? If it had a
cause, what caused that cause?

The notion that a dataset taken among elsewhens and elsewheres
within one universe that shows dispersion must mean that we live
in some smudged present where all possible worlds connect on the
edge of now and that this means we still have "Free Will" is a
fraud on the Science!! and that it is being venally propagated
as an apologia for religion is SICK!

You way too stuck on this MWI fantasy. Read my lips...its a metaphysical
add on to QM. QM doesn't require it in the slightest.

Just because you do the same experiment over and over and get a
variance in occurence does NOT mean that we can run this ONE
world (which we will have proved to have inhabited all along) over
and over and that then we will see a similar dispersion!

I agree, and this gives some doubt as to whether or not QM is about true
randomness.

It's total
NONSENSE and a misunderstanding of the meaning of the foundational
classic experiments of QM!


MWI means we cannot ever live in more than ONE SPECIFIC UNIVERSE
in which all events are entirely caused! The other "worlds" went
someplace else and left us HERE!

Look, dude MWI is wrong. Period.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Al wrote:

In article <MPG.1ad8d1cda602d803989705@news1.news.adelphia.net>,
KR Williams <krw@att.biz> wrote:

In article <CkWVfqBhembAFwAm@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...
I read in sci.electronics.design that KR Williams <krw@att.biz
wrote (in <MPG.1ad7ffc7208e43859896fc@news1.news.adelphia.net&gt
about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Fri, 2
Apr 2004:
...thus you "observed" the door (consciously or unconsciously,
depending on the velocity of impact). QED

Ah, so an attosecond before impact it wasn't there. Where was it,
then, and how did it get into position? Can cupboard doors predict
where they will need to be in the future?

Sure. They'll be in your way. ...never saw a tree jump out in
front of a car?

Have you been reading "Scientific American" lately? It recently had
articles in it about string theory, multiple universes and the like.
Sounds a lot like science fiction to me.

It is.

At any rate, all things are
possible as infinite multiple universes are possible.

Nope. There are an infinite number of real numbers between 0 and 1, but
none contain 2.

Somewhere a tree

DID jump in front of a car.

Nope.

The multiple universe (MWI) is a *conjecture*. It has no experimental
support whatsoever. QM interpretations are simply arbitrary model
extensions to QM that can be dispensed with. The models are simple not
testable and so are meaningless.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/quantummechanics/index.html


Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

 

[Dave Cole]

in article MPG.1ad7ffc7208e43859896fc@news1.news.adelphia.net, KR Williams
at krw@att.biz wrote on 4/2/04 22:55:

In article <CATVGzF1YDbAFwS8@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk says...
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward <kevindotaylwardEXTR
ACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in <bTUac.596$Ny4.307@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli
.net&gt about 'OT: Why are Engineers snookered by Creationism ?', on Thu,
1 Apr 2004:
Whether or not entities exist without any conscious
observers is not provably, one way or the other. However, evidence
strongly suggests that entities do indeed exist without conscious
observation, there is *no* evidence that this is not the case. For
example, we know, absolutely, that the results of the double slit
experiment do not depend on whether there is a physicist in the room
watching, or outside having a smoke.

I don't see that you need to do physics experiments. The fact that you
can hit your head on the open door of a kitchen cabinet is sufficient.
If you had consciously observed the door, you would not have hit your
head. If it was not there because you did not consciously observe it,
you would not have hit your head. But you DID hit your head. QED.

...thus you "observed" the door (consciously or unconsciously,
depending on the velocity of impact). QED

ROTFLMAO & trying to catch my breath!
Dave Cole