tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5335926727198381865..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: My existence, here and nowVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68832821632843273832017-09-02T10:19:34.875-07:002017-09-02T10:19:34.875-07:00Just because something isn't well understood d...Just because something isn't well understood doesn't make it the same as "poof". No one understands how physical stuff can become conscious but consciousness isn't thereby "poof". <br /><br />Right now "I" seem to be thinking about the arguments on this thread and the reasons for those arguments. If what Dusty is arguing is right, these reasons are really nothing more than physical causes in my brain/body, but if that's the case, how could I possibly know it and how could there be an "I" to know it? How can lumps of matter and the physical causes associated with them be ABOUT anything? They are simply what they are. Reasoning and "aboutness" are normative. Lumps of matter aren't.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6151146724171335692017-09-01T12:30:41.037-07:002017-09-01T12:30:41.037-07:00Agree to disagree then.Agree to disagree then.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79151946733922046952017-09-01T10:47:06.299-07:002017-09-01T10:47:06.299-07:00Legion of Logic said.. August 30, 2017 2:28 AM....Legion of Logic said.. August 30, 2017 2:28 AM.<br /><br />" Fortunately you do not need to be able to compute it, because the second you refer to an arrangement of the smallest component, you have taken it to the next higher level of order."<br />--Again, literally true, but you are describing analytical models, abstractions.<br /><br />" At best, you could use code speak, such as "this cluster of quarks", when most of us would refer to this cluster as a proton or neutron. I see no way of avoiding this."<br />--It isn't easy to avoid the models we form in our imaginations. Here is one way to begin to think of such things in one circumstance.<br /><br />We all know that a galaxy is made up of stars and planets and gas and dust and particles all orbiting their mutual centers of mass, the primary center being the center of the galaxy, and other centers being star/planet gravitational centers.<br /><br />Each star is in turn made up of particles. So, does each individual particle orbit the center of the galaxy or does the star act as an emergent whole such that each particle in some sense transfers its action to the whole star which then orbits the center of the galaxy? If you take the emergent approach then what of a gas cloud in orbit? What about individual particles in orbit?<br /><br />I think it is clear that there are no real emergent orbits, only the individual particles in the entire galaxy all interacting with each other in a system so vastly complex as to be almost unimaginable.<br /><br />It really requires a great deal of careful thought to begin to break free from our intuitive analytical hierarchical conceptual models and gain some appreciation of the vast complexity of every individual particle simply doing what a particle does.<br /><br /><br /> Stardusty: "I deny that phenomena are precisely real."<br /><br />" That's a tough burden of proof to meet."<br />--Not so tough as it might seem at first. Consider any large scale phenomena. Is that a precise description or can it be broken down into more accurate models of components?<br /><br /><br /> Stardusty: "For you and I we have great difficulty with imagining such a display, but for doG it is easy, and therefore such a display is real, even if not obvious to mere humans."<br /><br />" We can also assert that doG both exists and does not exist, but that does not make it true."<br />--Apples and oranges. The principle of non-contradiction is not the same thing as a hypothetical being with no upper bound on computational capacity.<br /><br />A 2 body problem can be solved, as can a 3 body problem, a 4 body problem, and an n body problem. There is no qualitative difference between solving these problems.<br /><br />When n equals the number of fundamental particles in our big bang then our universe has been solved, emergence is false, and reductionism is the case.<br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40740082786981523222017-09-01T10:04:01.955-07:002017-09-01T10:04:01.955-07:00Joe Hinman said... August 30, 2017 10:46 AM
&q...Joe Hinman said... August 30, 2017 10:46 AM <br /><br />" you assert the value of reductionism based upon the premise of scientism,and according to that science is the only valid form of knowledge, "<br />--I suggest you give up the mind reading you so often attempt, since you suck at it.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13544268351191019452017-08-30T10:52:39.372-07:002017-08-30T10:52:39.372-07:00His assertion that emergent properties are not rea...His assertion that emergent properties are not real is the losing the phenomena. going more basic unitl we are not lookimng at teh phenomena naymnore,<br /><br />I can show there is no property called wet, wetness is an illusion, if you look at water molecules they are not wet, therefore, there must be no property of wetness further up the line either.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46920941262801529492017-08-30T10:49:22.000-07:002017-08-30T10:49:22.000-07:00He just used one of the standard tricks of redirec...He just used one of the standard tricks of redirection, re-label, he can't deny we are alive so he will just re label living as not emergent.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90948417115212548802017-08-30T10:46:18.080-07:002017-08-30T10:46:18.080-07:00" you are dismissing the levels of order in w..." you are dismissing the levels of order in which those phenomena actually occur."<br /><br /><br />--I deny that phenomena are precisely real.<br /><br /><b>how can you deny that life and consciousness are real? Your argument is self refutting because you assert the value of reductionism based upon the premise of scientism,and according to that science is the only valid form of knowledge, Yet you assert the phenomena that would disprove your view is unreal and thus science can't be trusted to tell us even the most basic things such as that we are alive or that we are conscious,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41335371938265609812017-08-30T10:39:19.332-07:002017-08-30T10:39:19.332-07:00Stardusty Psyche said...
Legion of Logic said... A...Stardusty Psyche said...<br />Legion of Logic said... August 28, 2017 10:10 PM <br /><br />" What defines the difference? The configuration of the Legos, which forms a higher level of analysis than the individual Legos themselves."<br />--From your macro perspective in your attempt to form a model that is how it seems to you. The true definitions are in the aggregates of the smallest constituents.<br /><br /><br /><b>that still doesn't mean they can be discovered through reduciing,</b><br /><br />" properties emerge where none existed on any of the lower levels of order."<br /><br /><b>the properties don't but the causes do that's why it's not magic it's top down causation,the causes are higher up the levels.</b><br /><br />--The properties you speak of are abstractions, not real existent things.<br /><br /><b>wrong. life and consciousnesses are real, they are just abstractions,</b><br /><br /><br />" Even if a basketball consisted of the same oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon ratios of an armadillo, their arrangements - which are the next level above the units forming the arrangement - are vastly and observantly different."<br /><br /><b>that doesn't alter the fact of emergence</b><br /><br />--Indeed, and those differences in their myriad details define the differences between the basketball and the armadillo.<br /><br />" But the flipside, which is where you and I apparently stray, is that in order to understand an object, you could not begin at the lowest quantum level and stay there. You have to talk about the arrangements,"<br />--That is literally true. I have no such capacity. No human being does. The problem is far too complex for any human to precisely solve. To function it is necessary to make approximate macro models we call "properties".<br /><br /><br /><b>which is why reductionist wont work and why the statement about reduction being the only way to see things is so over the top</b><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69141692124077348502017-08-30T02:28:35.544-07:002017-08-30T02:28:35.544-07:00Stardusty: "From your macro perspective in y...Stardusty: "From your macro perspective in your attempt to form a model that is how it seems to you. The true definitions are in the aggregates of the smallest constituents."<br /><br />And the aggregates are what form the higher levels, so yes that's correct. In order for quarks to have the properties of chemical elements, they must at the very minimum be arranged in an atom of that element. Anything lower and they will not, thus in order to study an object, one must also know the characteristics of which arrangements yield which properties. "Quarks" do not make quartz form into crystals, but quarks arranged into particular atomic configurations do. Thus it is the higher level that yields the property.<br /><br /><br />Stardusty: "The properties you speak of are abstractions, not real existent things."<br /><br />You do assert this, yes. Or is there a you? <br /><br /><br />Stardusty: "That is literally true. I have no such capacity. No human being does. The problem is far too complex for any human to precisely solve. To function it is necessary to make approximate macro models we call "properties"."<br /><br />Fortunately you do not need to be able to compute it, because the second you refer to an arrangement of the smallest component, you have taken it to the next higher level of order. At best, you could use code speak, such as "this cluster of quarks", when most of us would refer to this cluster as a proton or neutron. I see no way of avoiding this.<br /><br /><br />Stardusty: "Higher levels do not actually exist as real precise things."<br /><br />Only if you reject that different arrangements of smaller components yield different results.<br /><br /><br />Stardusty: "I deny that phenomena are precisely real."<br /><br />That's a tough burden of proof to meet.<br /><br /><br />Stardusty: "For you and I we have great difficulty with imagining such a display, but for doG it is easy, and therefore such a display is real, even if not obvious to mere humans."<br /><br />We can also assert that doG both exists and does not exist, but that does not make it true.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13828998150039738262017-08-30T00:07:29.155-07:002017-08-30T00:07:29.155-07:00Legion of Logic said... August 28, 2017 10:10 P...Legion of Logic said... August 28, 2017 10:10 PM <br /><br />" What defines the difference? The configuration of the Legos, which forms a higher level of analysis than the individual Legos themselves."<br />--From your macro perspective in your attempt to form a model that is how it seems to you. The true definitions are in the aggregates of the smallest constituents.<br /><br />" properties emerge where none existed on any of the lower levels of order."<br />--The properties you speak of are abstractions, not real existent things.<br /><br />" Even if a basketball consisted of the same oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon ratios of an armadillo, their arrangements - which are the next level above the units forming the arrangement - are vastly and observantly different."<br />--Indeed, and those differences in their myriad details define the differences between the basketball and the armadillo.<br /><br />" But the flipside, which is where you and I apparently stray, is that in order to understand an object, you could not begin at the lowest quantum level and stay there. You have to talk about the arrangements,"<br />--That is literally true. I have no such capacity. No human being does. The problem is far too complex for any human to precisely solve. To function it is necessary to make approximate macro models we call "properties".<br /><br />" which are higher levels of order by definition, in order to capture the properties that the lowest levels themselves do not display. In other words, every level of order is equally important, not just the lowest."<br />--Higher levels do not actually exist as real precise things.<br /><br />" you are dismissing the levels of order in which those phenomena actually occur."<br />--I deny that phenomena are precisely real.<br /><br />" Now, perhaps we are simply disagreeing on terminology here."<br />--One does well to always consider that possibility, but I think there is a conceptual gulf between us.<br /><br />" quarks themselves do not display the properties, such as an atom being the smallest unit that displays the properties of an element, "<br />--For you and I we have great difficulty with imagining such a display, but for doG it is easy, and therefore such a display is real, even if not obvious to mere humans.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6165624272518717532017-08-28T23:19:05.563-07:002017-08-28T23:19:05.563-07:00Stardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said
"(3)...Stardusty Psyche said...<br />Joe Hinman said<br />"(3) your concept of the origin of the universe is a so called poof story so you have no room to talk,"<br />"You resent being controlled. you seek power," <br />"that is why you need to be seen as the smartest scientific type,"<br />"so being under God's power is episodically odious for a would be god like yourself,"<br />"you slander the motives of God believers to cover your own illegitimate motives" <br /><br /><br />--You are a fucktard moron. Get your head out of your ass, dig the shit out of your ears, and you might learn how to have a conversation some day.<br /><br /><br /><b>you have failed to answer anything I've said in this thread with any kind of substance nothing but insults. Here was your big chance and you turn to insults, you cannot demonstrate any rational basis forgery view You have nothing but false authority,<br /><br />you began with the arrogant, stupid, uninformed, greedy pompous and bombastic proclamation that your way of thinking your little ideological toy reductionism is the only valid way to look at things,any debater worth his salt has to jump at the chance to show up such a know it all.<br /><br />I argue that the kinetics opponent of reductionist, holism,is true and thus reductionist is false,your only substantive answer was that my example emergent properties,is magical thinking,I said it's not magic it's top down causation you have no answer, you totally avoided it after that,<br /><br /><br />then I argued that reductionism is a hueristic gimmick designed to lose the phenomena and thus enable the ideology to get shed of counter evidence, you made no attempt to deal with that on any kind of intellectual level but began calling names,<br /><br />Then you resorted to an atheist failsafe, turn the BOP by placing blame on religious thought, used the magical thinking card to do this. But I countered by showing that God speaking the world into being was not magical thinking but a demonstration of how divine thought is transmitted into revelation, ultimately shedding light on Jesus' Messianic credentials as God's role model for divine values.<br /><br />your best considered response I am a fucktard,<br /><br />let's see I remember something from childhood,3d grade<br /><br /> right: I am rubber you are a fucktard yourself, </b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15300931528899424212017-08-28T22:10:47.270-07:002017-08-28T22:10:47.270-07:00Stardusty: "One person's magic or supers...Stardusty: "One person's magic or superstition or legend or mythology is another person's religion."<br /><br />Okay, but that has no bearing on anything I've said. I'm not sure you understand that my position here has nothing to do with theism, but rather sitting around thinking about the way things are based on what science has discovered about nature.<br /><br /><br />Stardusty: "Therefore, in principle, the entire universe is soluble and completely defined at the nano scale."<br /><br />I don't believe so, at least not in the sense you seem to be claiming. And the reason can be roughly demonstrated with the bane of foot soles everywhere, the Lego.<br /><br />What is the difference between a castle made of Legos and a car made of Legos? Putting aside the subjective quality of symbolism, the difference is, one is a castle and the other a car, despite sharing the same foundational material. What defines the difference? The configuration of the Legos, which forms a higher level of analysis than the individual Legos themselves.<br /><br />Comparing a basketball and an armadillo runs into the same situation. At the smallest levels, both are made of the same stuff, the subatomic particles and whatever lies below even that. Both consist of protons, neutrons, and electrons. And as chemistry tells us, the configuration of those three leads to extremely different results - the atom is, after all, the smallest unit of matter that displays the properties of the chemical or material it belongs to. Subatomic particles do not display those properties, which means at the next higher level of order - the atom - properties emerge where none existed on any of the lower levels of order.<br /><br />But even beyond the atoms, higher orders display different features from lower orders based upon the configuration of the order beneath. Even if a basketball consisted of the same oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon ratios of an armadillo, their arrangements - which are the next level above the units forming the arrangement - are vastly and observantly different.<br /><br />I agree with you that to understand an object, you have to be able to understand every component straight down to the lowest quantum level. That is true. But the flipside, which is where you and I apparently stray, is that in order to understand an object, you could not begin at the lowest quantum level and stay there. You have to talk about the arrangements, which are higher levels of order by definition, in order to capture the properties that the lowest levels themselves do not display. In other words, every level of order is equally important, not just the lowest. That's why, I think, you struggle with admitting that balloons swell under pressure and water freezes into ice, because you are dismissing the levels of order in which those phenomena actually occur.<br /><br />Now, perhaps we are simply disagreeing on terminology here. To simplify the chain, if an object consisted of quark-->particle-->atom-->molecule-->object, and one wanted to skip the middle three levels and instead claim "the object consists of quarks in X configuration", then that is valid. My point in discussing emergent properties is simply the recognition that those quarks themselves do not display the properties, such as an atom being the smallest unit that displays the properties of an element, but rather that properties appear as lower level units are combined into particular higher level units, which in turn combine to form higher level units with new properties based on arrangement, and so on. Arrangements are higher levels than their components, and higher levels display properties that their lower level components do not. Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1646662513218964622017-08-28T20:59:10.717-07:002017-08-28T20:59:10.717-07:00Legion of Logic said.. August 28, 2017 6:21 AM....Legion of Logic said.. August 28, 2017 6:21 AM.<br /><br /> Stardusty: "No, it's magical thinking."<br /><br />" No, it's not. Disappointing."<br />--One person's magic or superstition or legend or mythology is another person's religion.<br /><br />Muhammad flew a winged horse to heaven, Jesus turned water to wine, the wind god exhaled a summer breeze. It's all the same.<br /><br /><br /> Stardusty: "Describing their relationships to each other would require vastly more data."<br /><br />" That was your attempt?"<br />--I sometimes don't go very deeply on the hopes that what information I provide will suffice. I gave the explanation of numbers, how vast they are and how hopeless it is that a human being would account individually for all the particles in even a very simple system. Approximations and aggregate models are absolutely necessary for us to function. One great advance of science is to realize that they are just that, only aggregate models, abstractions, not externally realized existent things.<br /><br /><br /> Stardusty: "But God could do it, right?"<br /><br />" Irrelevant to anything I said, and you accidentally capitalized God per correct grammar."<br />1. Critically relevant, but you do not yet apprehend the relevance. This is a sort of thought experiment. Imagine a being of unlimited cognitive capacity, able to remember an unbounded number of things, and compute their mutual relationships in virtually zero time. I will name this being doG.<br /><br />Suppose we have a 2 body problem. Can doG solve this problem for the next 1000 years? Of course.<br /><br />Suppose we have a 3 body problem. Can doG solve this problem for the next 1000 years? Of course.<br /><br />Suppose we have a 4 body problem. Can doG solve this problem for the next 1000 years? Of course.<br /><br />Suppose we have an n body problem. Can doG solve this problem for the next 1000 years? Of course.<br /><br />Suppose n = 10^27. No problem.<br /><br />Suppose n = 10^80. It aint no thing, the big doG in on it like white on rice.<br /><br />Therefore, in principle, the entire universe is soluble and completely defined at the nano scale.<br /><br />2. Not accidental.<br />3. Not "correct" grammar. Language is of the speaker. There is no god of language. The uppercase is understood by the reader to indicate certain capacities, so I chose to employ the upper case as a means to communicate those implicit attributions of capability.<br /><br /><br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25989491015895813742017-08-28T20:26:47.541-07:002017-08-28T20:26:47.541-07:00Joe Hinman said
"(3) your concept of the orig...Joe Hinman said<br />"(3) your concept of the origin of the universe is a so called poof story so you have no room to talk,"<br />"You resent being controlled. you seek power," <br />"that is why you need to be seen as the smartest scientific type,"<br />"so being under God's power is episodically odious for a would be god like yourself,"<br />"you slander the motives of God believers to cover your own illegitimate motives" <br />--You are a fucktard moron. Get your head out of your ass, dig the shit out of your ears, and you might learn how to have a conversation some day.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89542441621556761122017-08-28T09:21:31.097-07:002017-08-28T09:21:31.097-07:00It's the boorish naturalistic tendency to say ...It's the boorish naturalistic tendency to say God speaking creation into being is magic, supposedly magic in the ancient world is thought to work by incantation so speaking into existence into existence is magic. But popping unto existence for no reason is science.<br /><br />I say speaking has a different use, Not magic but heuristics. It all goes ack to the concept of the word, Why did the ancient brews use memra for God's presence on earth?? Thesis in the targets. When the Jews spoke Greek they used the word Logos to stand for memra.<br /><br />Speaking Revelations. Logos is revelation,the link between Logos an memra as word, revelation is not something I made up it's recognized in Jewish encyclopedia and by Messianic writers like Edersheim.<br /><br />God is the transcendental signified, the transcendental intensifiers include Logos and memra and God.It's not about magic but ordering principle which is expressed through the revelation inherent within the principle of logos, Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19566071788483564312017-08-28T09:07:54.721-07:002017-08-28T09:07:54.721-07:00I will now take his refusal to answer my arguments...I will now take his refusal to answer my arguments on reductionist as surrender. He knows he can't answer losing the phenomena or top down causation so he is just putting up smoke screen with personal insults.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25464322120000431392017-08-28T09:05:05.909-07:002017-08-28T09:05:05.909-07:00Stardusty Psyche said...
Joe said
"why is re...Stardusty Psyche said...<br />Joe said <br />"why is religious thinking magical thinking? "<br /><br />--Because it is a series of poof stories. There is supposedly some magical invisible man, or being, floating around out there someplace, or everyplace, or no place depending on which version of the story is being told.<br /><br /><b>(1) "poof story" is an idiotic term nothing in the <br />Bible goes poof. You are using prescribed ideological slander terms for mockery without knowing anything about the thing you mock.<br />(2) you are equating popular piety with belief in God very ignorant,<br />(3) your concept of the origin of the universe is a so called poof story so you have no room to talk,</b><br /><br /><br />Supposedly this magic man or men or being or set of beings can read our minds and spy on us at all times. From all this eavesdropping and spying he/she/it will alternatively do nothing to you when you die, or make you live another life on Earth perhaps as an animal, or send you to the most wonderful vacation place in the universe for all eternity or torture you in unbearable agony for all eternity.<br /><br /><b>You resent being controlled. you seek power, that is why you need to be seen as the smartest scientific type, so being under God's power is episodically odious for a would be god like yourself,you slander the motives of God believers to cover your own illegitimate motives for mocking ridiculing other's faith,</b><br /><br />In the mean time, back on Earth, which he/she/it kindly poofed into existence with a big magic word, this magic man/woman/being is continually poofing things about, performing miracles, assisting the sick, killing cancer cells, fixing bad joints, and occasionally does real magic tricks like walking on water, raising the dead, and turning water into wine.<br /><br /><b>I guess he should seek power the right way, by being in the priesthood of knowledgeable teach science show everyone how brilliant he is like you do, show how much science he Knossos so he will be worthy like you.</b><br /><br />It's all magical superstitious thinking of a most incredibly ignorant primitive sort.<br /><br /><b>Of course it doesn't occur to you that these are classics of one faith thousands of years old, modern thinkers write modern theology books. Bit you don't have the guts or the intelligence or the education to understand then,you are too cowardly to read them,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50014054220958952402017-08-28T06:57:10.803-07:002017-08-28T06:57:10.803-07:00Joe said
"why is religious thinking magical ...Joe said <br />"why is religious thinking magical thinking? "<br />--Because it is a series of poof stories. There is supposedly some magical invisible man, or being, floating around out there someplace, or everyplace, or no place depending on which version of the story is being told.<br /><br />Supposedly this magic man or men or being or set of beings can read our minds and spy on us at all times. From all this eavesdropping and spying he/she/it will alternatively do nothing to you when you die, or make you live another life on Earth perhaps as an animal, or send you to the most wonderful vacation place in the universe for all eternity or torture you in unbearable agony for all eternity.<br /><br />In the mean time, back on Earth, which he/she/it kindly poofed into existence with a big magic word, this magic man/woman/being is continually poofing things about, performing miracles, assisting the sick, killing cancer cells, fixing bad joints, and occasionally does real magic tricks like walking on water, raising the dead, and turning water into wine.<br /><br />It's all magical superstitious thinking of a most incredibly ignorant primitive sort.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65421383431975523802017-08-28T06:21:54.620-07:002017-08-28T06:21:54.620-07:00Stardusty: "No, it's magical thinking.&q...Stardusty: "No, it's magical thinking."<br /><br />No, it's not. Disappointing.<br /><br /><br />Stardusty: "Describing their relationships to each other would require vastly more data."<br /><br />That was your attempt?<br /><br /><br />Stardusty: "But God could do it, right?"<br /><br />Irrelevant to anything I said, and you accidentally capitalized God per correct grammar.<br /><br /><br />Stardusty: "That being the case, the nano scale states fully describe the macro scale states"<br /><br />I'm waiting to see that case made convincingly, without referring to higher levels.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53207789779931778502017-08-28T06:05:11.831-07:002017-08-28T06:05:11.831-07:00No, it's magical thinking. I realize people do...No, it's magical thinking. I realize people don't like to think of it that way, which is why I put it that way, not just to be a pain in the ass as you might reasonably consider given the general state of internet discourse, rather, for the perspective seeding value of being mildly disquieting in word choice.<br /><br />why is religious thinking magical thinking? Now time to back up your little all knowing pronouncements with facts. Don't be a coward put your money where your mouth is and give us a reason.<br /><br />here is a essay I wrote on Atehistwatch <a href="No,%20it's%20magical%20thinking.%20I%20realize%20people%20don't%20like%20to%20think%20of%20it%20that%20way,%20which%20is%20why%20I%20put%20it%20that%20way,%20not%20just%20to%20be%20a%20pain%20in%20the%20ass%20as%20you%20might%20reasonably%20consider%20given%20the%20general%20state%20of%20internet%20discourse,%20rather,%20for%20the%20perspective%20seeding%20value%20of%20being%20mildly%20disquieting%20in%20word%20choice.why%20is%20religious%20thinking%20magical%20thinking?%20Now%20time%20to%20back%20up%20your%20little%20all%20knowing%20pronouncements%20with%20facts.%20Don't%20be%20a%20coward%20put%20your%20money%20where%20your%20mouth%20is%20and%20give%20us%20a%20reason.here%20is%20a%20essay%20I%20wrote%20on%20Atehistwatch%20disapproving%20a%20claim%20that%20religious%20thinking%20is%20Magical%20thinking.one%20by%20someome%20else%20magical%20thinking%20inherent%20in%20new%20atheism" rel="nofollow"><b>disapproving a claim that religious thinking is Magical thinking.</b></a><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25629542896239974872017-08-28T06:01:26.539-07:002017-08-28T06:01:26.539-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85311494759744203822017-08-28T05:14:59.549-07:002017-08-28T05:14:59.549-07:00Stardusty Psyche said...
Legion of Logic said.. A...Stardusty Psyche said...<br /><br />Legion of Logic said.. August 27, 2017 9:59 PM.<br /><br />" The whole magical thinking shtick is nothing but a ridiculous strawman and does not remotely address my position."<br />--You said poof happens.<br /><br />" I used the word "poof" sarcastically "<br />--You need to work on your delivery. Until then, I suggest you avoid hot button acts like racial humor...takes impeccable audience connection to pull off.<br /><br /><b>racial humor? where? do you think using "shtick" is racial? ludicrous.</b><br /><br /><br />"because that was the word you used to employ your strawman."<br />--No, it's magical thinking. I realize people don't like to think of it that way, which is why I put it that way, not just to be a pain in the ass as you might reasonably consider given the general state of internet discourse, rather, for the perspective seeding value of being mildly disquieting in word choice.<br /><br /><b>answer my argent creton! why is my thing magic when you have no basks in any kind of fact for the origin of the universe,???? your view is just as motorboat, you are merely using the term magic as a flair word you don't know shit about magic you are ignorant of what belief in God means.</b><br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71295721854453677442017-08-28T05:01:05.376-07:002017-08-28T05:01:05.376-07:00notoce how he is so offended by the defendant that...notoce how he is so offended by the defendant that he prove his point the notion that live up to the demands he placed om other people's positions is driving him up the wall. He calls that "pulling bull shit out of your ass," You want me to actually prove the logic of my position that's just bullshit!Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47164590046834941602017-08-28T04:57:31.834-07:002017-08-28T04:57:31.834-07:00Stardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said.. August ...Stardusty Psyche said...<br />Joe Hinman said.. August 27, 2017 9:55 PM.<br /><br />" that;s the yea-boo theory of metaphysics, it goes like this,"boo that,that is not my thing. my thing yea! that, boo!"<br />--Are you intoxicated or just an otherwise baked crackpot?<br /><br /><b>you have yet to present an argent or back up your all knowing pronouncements with kind of data or facts, you are flapping your ignorant gums, </b><br /><br />" you believe the universe popped into existence out of nothing for no reason,"<br /><br />--Do you always pull stupid bullshit out of your ass or are you doing it special just for little old me?<br /><br /><b>If not then tell me what you do think caused the universe to come into being? making pronouncements is not proof and insulting arguments does not disprove them.<br /><br />still not answering the charge of losing the phenomena,,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60909189468734458592017-08-27T22:34:28.100-07:002017-08-27T22:34:28.100-07:00Legion of Logic said.. August 27, 2017 9:59 PM.
...<br />Legion of Logic said.. August 27, 2017 9:59 PM.<br /><br />" The whole magical thinking shtick is nothing but a ridiculous strawman and does not remotely address my position."<br />--You said poof happens.<br /><br />" I used the word "poof" sarcastically "<br />--You need to work on your delivery. Until then, I suggest you avoid hot button acts like racial humor...takes impeccable audience connection to pull off.<br /><br />"because that was the word you used to employ your strawman."<br />--No, it's magical thinking. I realize people don't like to think of it that way, which is why I put it that way, not just to be a pain in the ass as you might reasonably consider given the general state of internet discourse, rather, for the perspective seeding value of being mildly disquieting in word choice.<br /><br /><br />" Describe the difference between a basketball and an armadillo at the nano level."<br />--My favorite number is Avogadro's, about 6.02 * 10^23. By definition there are that many atoms in 12 grams of Carbon 12. So, just considering the number of molecules in ordinary objects we can calculate numbers very roughly on that order.<br /><br />Describing their relationships to each other would require vastly more data. Predicting how all these molecules would change their relationships to each other and to everything else would again require a literally unimaginable amount of data storage and processing power.<br /><br />But God could do it, right? The omniscient one could do it with ease and perfection, certainly, being omnipotent and all, right? For example, given 100 atoms God could surly predict just how they would combine, right? And so on for 10^10, 1^20, and every quark, electron, neutrino, and photon in the universe. Surly the almighty, being of infinite power and all, could predict all the behaviors of all the particles in all the universe for all time.<br /><br />That being the case, the nano scale states fully describe the macro scale states, but we poor humans are hopelessly inadequate to make such predictive calculations, but thank God that God can do it for us!<br /><br /> StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.com