bmacwilliam

Can reality be both Euclidean and non-Euclidean? Yet both kinds of geometry are part of mathematics. Which one is "real" and which is not? Ba'al Chatzaf Good question. The thought here is that both are real, but what is 'real' to us, are the laws, constraints, and Mathematical constructs that necessarily lead to sentient constructs like us. The rest 'exists' elsewhere in the multiverse. Bob

While I don't agree that Math is merely about numbers, I am not firmly convinced about anything either way. My issue is that, as far as we know, the mathematical modelling of our universe both on the large scale and the very small doesn't stop. If, and that's a big 'IF', the Math doesn't stop, then we cannot formulate any logically based separation between reality and Mathematics no? I don't see the rationale for separating Math from 'Reality', but I'd love to hear opposing views. Bob

Man gives morality to religion, not the other way around. " on spreading Christmas cheer to poor kids." - not the dreaded "A" word. Rather well artulated in the language of evolution and science though. Do you honestly think that it's a coincidence that you admire a person, perhaps most directly as a result of behaviour that was/is harmful or potentially harmful to himself with a benefit to others? Bob

What could possibly be more selfish than to transform yourself into a better person? Bob

One think that has always bothered me wrt physics (and I have a physics education) is that there seems to be an unwarranted metaphysical distinction between Mathematics and Reality. Not that I assert that all Math is "real" whatever that might mean, but rather the somewhat easier to defend (I think) idea that all that is Real is Math. Or in other words, I have a problem with the general (but not universal) perception by physicists (or experimentalists at least) that Math, while being an incredibly usefool tool, is only a descriptive tool, and there's 'something else' that Math is describing. That doesn't work for me. To me, the Math doesn't stop. There's no particular place where we can say that Math doesn't work anymore. Even those that hold the idea of metaphysical separation nevertheless continue to search for deeper Mathematical truths. I don't think you can defend the position that Math must be disregarded at some point. What point does Math fail? I don't think it does. Is our universe just the Mathematical variation (or one of many) of initial conditions and "physical" laws that must necessarily produce sentience? Seems to be the most likely explanation. Ba'al says turtles all the way down. I think it might be Math all the way down. The choice to adopt or believe only parts of the Math seems arbitrary and Hawking subscribes to M-Theory which is a String Theory variant (or superset?) that suggests an 11-dimensional Mathematical multiverse inside an even greater multiverse. So, he sees a very "Math-Intensive" universe but I don't think he addresses how far he thinks the Math goes. The laws of Math (pure math, not physical laws) would seem to exist separately, outside of the multiverse it describes. Bottom line is I think that the best explanation of "why" reality exists is that Mathematics requires it. But if this is wrong, we need a justification somewhere, somehow to abandon Math. Bob

Wow, twice in one day...

"The organization [the Church of Scientology] clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and the bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder LRH. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements." - Judge Paul G. Breckenridge, Jr., in his October 16, 1994 ruling against the Church of Scientology in the case of the Church of Scientology of California vs. Gerald Armstrong, Los Angeles Superior Court case no. C 420153

Enlighten us with the meaning of a "masculinized brain" please. Differences are found in several areas. Here is a brief overview with details. Essentially, human brains will develop to the female norm without hormonal cascades. However, is there a pre-surgical determination of whether the person has a "gender norm" brain that happens before surgery? A surgeon checks to see if a tumour exists before actually operating. They don't just take the person's word for it that they have a tumour - they actually check. In transgender cases, do they measure the brain, or do they just take the person's word for it that there's the opposite gender trapped in there? Anyone see a problem with this? Bob

Enlighten us with the meaning of a "masculinized brain" please. Is that the type of brain that doesn't ask for directions, or has some burning need to pee standing up, or what? Bob

It mathematically results from the proposition that the speed of light is discerned as constant in all reference frames. Deriving the formulas from the proposition (a simple task) is different from explaining why the proposition is so. Shayne Sure, but the proposition here is the cosmic speed limit. This is where the "why" question is interesting. Time dilation is a simple consequence of this limit. There is nothing mysterious (at least to me) about time dilation in a causal sense (that is clear), it's the speed limit that is "mysterious" to me. Edit: If the speed of light is constant, time MUST dilate, length must contract, mass must increase. This is easy (relatively - pun intended) to understand. It simply and directly follows from the postulate. Time is not what we think it is (and distance, and even mass) - cool! But the only cause in any sense (to me) is the speed limit. To me, it's like asking what "causes" 2+2 to equal 4? I don't find that an interesting question. Bob It's not interesting that the speed of light has identity. What is interesting is that it's constant in all reference frames. That it is constant in all frames leads to certain easy to produce deductive conclusions, but not to a causal theory of what it is in the nature of reality that causes this intimate relation between light and matter. Time dilation is an effect. What is the cause? Not the math. The math is just another way of looking at the effect contained in the premise. Shayne "Time dilation is an effect. What is the cause?" I guess I don't really disagree other than I see time dilation as a simple deduction rather than an "effect". The speed limit is an effect where the cause is interesting. Bob

Perhaps in this case the label is appropriate - or not - I don't know. But Micheal, I respectfully suggest that you have too often failed to accurately assess what is bigotry and what isn't. 1) Is it bigoted to despise Communism? Can you conclude anything about these people as a group? Is it bigoted to say they are all wrong (or at least to the extent they actually believe it), and their core dogma is nonsense? 2) Is attacking the fundamental irrationality of Communism unwarranted? It is a body of thought that is dangerous, destructive and nonsensical, without any race-bias, or gender-bias, or anything. So is Islam. I again respecfully suggest you learn to understand the difference between this and bigotry. I think this is a big problem when you accuse someone of hatred or bigotry when they criticize a nonsensical body of "thought". Maybe you'll even earn a high compliment from Ba'al and be considered "pretty smart - for a Gentile". Bob

Exactly. The deductions are interesting, but no mystery surrounds their causality. It's the premise that's the most intersting.

It mathematically results from the proposition that the speed of light is discerned as constant in all reference frames. Deriving the formulas from the proposition (a simple task) is different from explaining why the proposition is so. Shayne Sure, but the proposition here is the cosmic speed limit. This is where the "why" question is interesting. Time dilation is a simple consequence of this limit. There is nothing mysterious (at least to me) about time dilation in a causal sense (that is clear), it's the speed limit that is "mysterious" to me. Edit: If the speed of light is constant, time MUST dilate, length must contract, mass must increase. This is easy (relatively - pun intended) to understand. It simply and directly follows from the postulate. Time is not what we think it is (and distance, and even mass) - cool! But the only cause in any sense (to me) is the speed limit. To me, it's like asking what "causes" 2+2 to equal 4? I don't find that an interesting question. Bob

I thought motion caused time dilation since time is a measurement of motions of which there are many. --Brant The first half of your sentence makes sense, I don't understand the second half. Anyway, motion is indeed associated with time dilation, but I don't see that physicists have actually causally connected it by specifying how, nor do they seem particularly concerned with doing so. Such a lack of concern disqualifies them from actually being legitimate physicists. Shayne Not so sure about that conclusion. Time dilation is a simple and necessary consequence of the cosmic speed limit - no? Bob

Crime and poverty may be related sometimes, but it's not a direct and the link is more complex. Newfoundland for example, relatively poor to begin with, suffered a catastrophic loss of the fishing industry and a resulting economic crunch (before oil and gas fueled a rebound). Crime did not increase, attendance in post-secondary education increased. Crime in Newfoundland (traditionally Canada's poverty zone) has always been extremely low, even by Canadian standards. Crime is not necessarily connected to poverty at all. Bob

Could it be that the already existing cosmos is the always existing cosmos? Could it be that it is Turtles All The Way Down? Ba'al Chatzaf Not if something can come from nothing. Bob

Bold statment. Seems pretty clear that it is. What would be the basis of this statement? Bob

I tend to agree with Ernest Rutherford - I forget the exact quote but it was something like: "There is only Physics. Everything else is just Stamp Collecting." Bob

Hume inclined to this position. Ba'al Chatzaf Makes me wonder about the philosphical implications of the scientific discovery that simultaneity doesn't exist. I suspect that Philosophers would reject the notion that information should ever flow this way (Science --> Philosophy) and that this 'discovery' is just a philosophical error. Bob Simultaneity does exist, but it is not absolute. It is dependent on the Frame of Reference. Two events can be sumultaneous in on frame of of reference but not in another. Ba'al Chatzaf Well, fair enough, I should have written "absolute simultaneity", meaning the common, intuitive concept that is not correct. Absolute simultaneity does not exist. Did both events happen at 4 O'Clock? The answer is always "it depends". IMHO, this alone should be enough to rattle our intuitive concept of causation, but unfortunately precious few have enough education to understand that this idea isn't just some fairy-tale make-believe. Bob

Hume inclined to this position. Ba'al Chatzaf Makes me wonder about the philosphical implications of the scientific discovery that simultaneity doesn't exist. I suspect that Philosophers would reject the notion that information should ever flow this way (Science --> Philosophy) and that this 'discovery' is just a philosophical error. Bob

I think drawing parallels here does a great disservice to Mises. Mises gives a clear, simple and concise explanation of human values and rational action and implications. Rand, in contrast, has to jump through all sorts of nonsensical hoops in "emergencies" situations that render her ethics/morality DOA. Bob

The argument has the same form, but it is NOT logically the same argument. The statement that "Nothing caused matter and energy to arise" is a recognition of where our knowledge has run out, or where our mathematics end. Inventing a designer has NO logical basis whatsoever so calling this the "same argument" is nonsense. EDIT: My hunch is that we humans do not properly understand the time/causality thing very well. Bob

The same infinite regress appears in materialism. In practice, materialists simply push back the explanation until they arrive at a putative cause about which they can say nothing. Well, I think those two sentences are contradictory, but the point is that 'materialism' stops when evidence runs out. There is no invention of a "man in the sky". it's plain silly to ask, "Well, what caused the programmers to arise?" No, it's not. Bob

But then who/what created the "intelligent source"? The who created the previous one and on and on ad infinitum? Your own logic fails right here. Why not stop when evidence stops? Life evolved simply because it seems that life is inherent in matter under the right conditions. The laws governing matter just "are". There is no logical footing to look beyond and ask "why" the laws are this way (at least not yet). It is a nonsensical question like asking what's north of the north pole. Bob