South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

October 19, 2019, 00:04:24 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Atheist Kids (split)

 (Read 7944 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« on: March 11, 2010, 09:13:01 AM »

Why let him grow up in such ignorance? Why don't you teach him the concept of God (classical theism) without referring to religion. I am sure he will still be an evolutionist, just a little more enlightened. Is that perhaps you don't know enough about the concept of God to teach or inform him about it?

Don't you think kids in our schools get bombarded with enough of that god-mumbo-jumbo? Clearly the kid has made up his own mind as to what he considers the truth. And frankly, the concept you suggest of an 'enlightened evolutionist' being somehow superior to someone with purely evolutionist views (without the god-reference) is rather offensive and in my opinion bs.

^^^Exactly. Ignorance in this context mean that he doesnt know the bible back to front as I do, he has never been forced to attend sunday school (although he did go when he was little - because he asked to go - he stopped going when he lost interest) or to listen to a preacher going on about the god perception for hours and hours. He has attended Mass with his (now ex) buddy earlier this year, so I would certainly not label him as "unenlightened". The concept of BELIEF in a deity is foreign to him though, he's not been bought up to believe in anything except himself and his abilities to see him through the hard patches.
Actually no, all you need to teach him is what classical theism is without any reference to any relgion... (weird, I did say that then you bring in the Bible, do you teach your kid to read with comprehension?). Do you know what classical theism is and how to get to it via logic and reason? Or are you fundamentally opposed to enlightening your kid about any philosophical and metaphysical enquiries about reality?
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2010, 09:44:32 AM »

Actually no, all you need to teach him is what classical theism is without any reference to any relgion... (weird, I did say that then you bring in the Bible, do you teach your kid to read with comprehension?). Do you know what classical theism is and how to get to it via logic and reason? Or are you fundamentally opposed to enlightening your kid about any philosophical and metaphysical enquiries about reality?

Why? To what purpose? It sounds to me like the kid has a solid grasp on the concept of "God" and why people believe in these fairy tales. It also sounds to me like Faerie has done a good job in teaching him about fundamental truths and how to arrive at solid conclusions, while sticking to them even in the face of rejection by his friends.

How in Cthulhu's name do you arrive at any sort of episteme about "God" via "metaphysical enquiries" using "logic and reason"? You are spouting contradictory nonsense.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2010, 12:36:25 PM »

Errr, I don't think the kid even knows what atheism is, nevermind classical theism.

And you autodidacted this? Here, have a cookie.
Thanks, here is one for you too:

I doubt he knows the word atheist, but thats what he's been bought up as. He has no god to refer to, but he knows and understands the concept of evolution, so in that context he labeled himself as such.

Fundamental truths? Interesting, care to elaborate what they are?

Evolution being a demonstrable fact, for one (seeing as this is core to the discussion). Is answering questions with questions indicative of your style? If so, we're going to have a whale of time, bud.
Yeah so? What does evolution have to do with atheism or theism? More importantly, what does truth have to do with atheism?

So... because of your ignorance I am spouting nonsense? Arguments from ignorance do not impress a lot of people, me included.

Ignorance? Bwhehehe. Dude, I know exactly what you're on about and why it's a pile of shit. We can take it to a different thread, if you like. Shall I point out to you that you sidestepped the point with an ad hominem, or is that too uncomfortable to you?
I don't think you should worry too much about ad hominems, sidestepping questions etc. You will learn that it is a trait of posters here on skeptic.za.org. Don't worry, you will do the same so no need to act all high and mighty and be judgemental.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 11, 2010, 12:40:40 PM »

Do you guys think this is an informed opinion lol?
Obviously considerably better-informed than yours.  You haven’t, as is your almost invariable habit, addressed the central question Dawkins has raised about theology.



I mean, you would not listen to a mechanic if there was something wrong with your geyser would you?
Some mechanics are also plumbers and vice versa.



How did you come to this conclusion?
Your posting history here and elsewhere.  Objective self-assessment isn’t your forte either, itself a product of mistaking idle armchair musings for Truth™ about the world.



Mmmm, advances in epistemology seem to point to the direction that philosophical naturalism and materialism are epistemically sterile and a bit useless, incoherent and by gosh self-refuting (not that the self-refuting nature of a proposition is going to stop any of you guys).
That would explain their persistence and prevalence. Roll Eyes

'Luthon64
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #4 on: March 11, 2010, 12:45:16 PM »

Quote mining for the win!  Roll Eyes

Quote
Ignorance in this context mean that he doesnt know the bible back to front as I do, he has never been forced to attend sunday school (although he did go when he was little - because he asked to go - he stopped going when he lost interest) or to listen to a preacher going on about the god perception for hours and hours. He has attended Mass with his (now ex) buddy earlier this year, so I would certainly not label him as "unenlightened". The concept of BELIEF in a deity is foreign to him though, he's not been bought up to believe in anything except himself and his abilities to see him through the hard patches.

You're assuming stuff about what the kid knows and doesn't know.

Quote
Yeah so? What does evolution have to do with atheism or theism?

Plenty, unless you're hell-bent on being an accomodationist. Topic for another thread, once again. Care to play?

Quote
don't think you should worry too much about ad hominems, sidestepping questions etc. You will learn that it is a trait of posters here on skeptic.za.org. Don't worry, you will do the same so no need to act all high and mighty and be judgemental.

Lulz, I point out your hypocrisy and you respond with some more hypocrisy. From what I see, self-analysis doesn't seem to be your strong point. Oh, but that would mean pandering to a subjective framework of truth, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:



Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #5 on: March 11, 2010, 12:48:52 PM »

Do you guys think this is an informed opinion lol?
Obviously considerably better-informed than yours.  You haven’t, as is your almost invariable habit, addressed the central question Dawkins has raised about theology.
Forgive me for not answering a question from a philosophically and theologicaly ignorant person.

I mean, you would not listen to a mechanic if there was something wrong with your geyser would you?
Some mechanics are also plumbers and vice versa.
No evidence that Dawkins is a philosopher and a scientist. Gosh, all evidence indicates the man has a PhD in zoology IIRC.

How did you come to this conclusion?
Your posting history here and elsewhere.  Objective self-assessment isn’t your forte either, itself a product of mistaking idle armchair musings for Truth™ about the world.
Yeah well, the same can be said of you.


Mmmm, advances in epistemology seem to point to the direction that philosophical naturalism and materialism are epistemically sterile and a bit useless, incoherent and by gosh self-refuting (not that the self-refuting nature of a proposition is going to stop any of you guys).
That would explain their persistence and prevalence. Roll Eyes

'Luthon64
I guess you need a lot of heads to make nonsense sound sensical even though it is epistemically sterile and worthless.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2010, 12:52:18 PM »

Quote
Yeah so? What does evolution have to do with atheism or theism?

Plenty, unless you're hell-bent on being an accomodationist. Topic for another thread, once again. Care to play?

If evolution had anything to do with atheism or theism it will be taught in religious and philosophy classes. Fortunately here we are in the 21st century and it is taught in science classes.

But yeah play all you want.
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #7 on: March 11, 2010, 13:10:37 PM »

Yeah? Right back atcha. What does theism have to do with philosophy (or vice versa). If one had anything to do with the other, it would be taught in <insert the other> classes, wouldn't it?

Didn't think so.

You see, you can't so easily have your cake and eat it, too. You can't pick and choose when to conflate religion with philosophy when it suits you, and deny the philosophical implications of either evolutionism or faith-based belief with philosophy, when it suits you.

Where Richard Dawkins is concerned, we can absurdly regress the argument about what he's "qualified" to speak about, as much as you like, as long as you aply the same standards to yourself, boikie.

Lemme guess, you did a stint in Philo 101, and had your diploma laminated and stuck up on the fridge where it can give you constant reinforcement about how you supposedly know what you're talking about (and have the paperwork to prove it, peeps!) ?

Ya see, in the real world, people can be knowlegable and erudite about things they didn't have "formal" education about. Of course, playing that line of argument gives you a convenient angle of attack - seeing as you can't deal with Dawkins' reasoning, you simply handwave it as irrelevant because the man "ain't trained".

Nice try, but nobody's fooled.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #8 on: March 11, 2010, 13:12:20 PM »

Yeah? Right back atcha. What does theism have to do with philosophy (or vice versa). If one had anything to do with the other, it would be taught in <insert the other> classes, wouldn't it?
Theism actually has a lot to do with philosophy. Read up. So does materialism, naturalism, realism, nominalism, rationalism, empiricism, dualism etc.

You see, you can't so easily have your cake and eat it, too. You can't pick and choose when to conflate religion with philosophy when it suits you, and deny the philosophical implications of either evolutionism or faith-based belief with philosophy, when it suits you.
Evolutionism and its philosophical implications? Surprise, what do you believe those are?

Where Richard Dawkins is concerned, we can absurdly regress the argument about what he's "qualified" to speak about, as much as you like, as long as you aply the same standards to yourself, boikie.

Lemme guess, you did a stint in Philo 101, and had your diploma laminated and stuck up on the fridge where it can give you constant reinforcement about how you supposedly know what you're talking about (and have the paperwork to prove it, peeps!) ?

Ya see, in the real world, people can be knowlegable and erudite about things they didn't have "formal" education about. Of course, playing that line of argument gives you a convenient angle of attack - seeing as you can't deal with Dawkins' reasoning, you simply handwave it as irrelevant because the man "ain't trained".

Nice try, but nobody's fooled.
Oh well, Dawkins is not fooling anybody with his philosophical ignorance either. A waste of time imo. His knowledge about evolution is good though, although I have seen better. He does not like to go much into molecular detail, which is a great shame. His next book should focus more on those aspects in a little more detail.
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2010, 13:19:53 PM »

Heh, *sproing* goes the trap. Evolutionary biology (and the deterministic chemistry that drives its current research effort) has major implications for notions of dualism, for one. Can you see or can't you? Must I explain further? Oh, but wait, you don't have a biology degree, do you?

Oh well, I guess it's pointless then, seeing as none of it would be of any use to you, amirite?  Cheesy

And I agree, Dawkins isn't fooling anybody!
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2010, 13:26:29 PM »

Heh, *sproing* goes the trap. Evolutionary biology (and the deterministic chemistry that drives its current research effort) has major implications for notions of dualism, for one.
1) What about the indeterministic nature of physics that drives chemistry? Do you know what supervenience means?
2) What does evolutionary biology have to do with dualism, materialism, monism, non-dualism, pan-psychsism etc.?
3) Let's talk evolution, molecular and cellular biology, preadaptations, convergence, molecular machines, abiogenesis, bioinformatics etc. all day long. I don't mind, do you?
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2010, 13:36:05 PM »

1) Quantum indeterminism isn't a physical law. Black holes may indeed have hair, and very nicely combed hair at that.
2) Dude, it doesn't take scooby doo to figure out that the demonstrable evolution of intelligence obviates the need for dualism, and in fact, makes it untenable.
3) Sure, we can do that. What does that have to do with the above though?

Let's get one thing straight. Your handwaving and smoke-'n-mirrors is utterly wasted on me, I can smell that stink from a mile away. If you're going to try and take the I'm-smarter-than-you line, I can guarantee you that you're going to see your arse.
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #12 on: March 11, 2010, 13:39:47 PM »

4) I felt this list needed my own useless adendum.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2010, 13:53:17 PM »

1) Quantum indeterminism isn't a physical law. Black holes may indeed have hair, and very nicely combed hair at that.
Really? Where is Mefi and "sh|t happens" rwenzori? Care to support Gog's tjops? BTW, what does determinism and indeterminism have to do with dualism, materialism, monism, non-dualism, pan-psychsism etc.?

2) Dude, it doesn't take scooby doo to figure out that the demonstrable evolution of intelligence obviates the need for dualism, and in fact, makes it untenable.
Even if that is true, so what? That still does not make philosophical materialism and naturalism any less incoherent.

3) Sure, we can do that. What does that have to do with the above though?
Oh, I just thought you might like to.

Let's get one thing straight. Your handwaving and smoke-'n-mirrors is utterly wasted on me, I can smell that stink from a mile away. If you're going to try and take the I'm-smarter-than-you line, I can guarantee you that you're going to see your arse.
Oh ok smarty pants.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #14 on: March 11, 2010, 13:54:44 PM »

1) Quantum indeterminism isn't a physical law. Black holes may indeed have hair, and very nicely combed hair at that.
Really? Where is Mefi and "sh|t happens" rwenzori? Care to support Gog's tjops? BTW, what does determinism and indeterminism have to do with dualism, materialism, monism, non-dualism, pan-psychsism etc.?

2) Dude, it doesn't take scooby doo to figure out that the demonstrable evolution of intelligence obviates the need for dualism, and in fact, makes it untenable.
Even if that is true, so what? That still does not make philosophical materialism and naturalism any less incoherent.

3) Sure, we can do that. What does that have to do with the above though?
Oh, I just thought you might like to.

Let's get one thing straight. Your handwaving and smoke-'n-mirrors is utterly wasted on me, I can smell that stink from a mile away. If you're going to try and take the I'm-smarter-than-you line, I can guarantee you that you're going to see your arse.
Oh ok smarty pants.
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #15 on: March 11, 2010, 14:07:59 PM »

Dude, do you even know what dualism is? You must either be incredibly dense, or deliberatly dishonest, to claim that determinism doesn't pertain to dualism.

Quote
Even if that is true, so what? That still does not make philosophical materialism and naturalism any less incoherent.

Some arguing by assertion. I'm impressed!

Quote
Oh ok smarty pants.

Nope, you're projecting. I simply don't need to quote Wikipedia topic lists in order to make a point  Roll Eyes
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 11, 2010, 14:13:37 PM »

5) That must be some kind of record for seeing through Teleological’s agenda-suffused codswallop.

Really? Where is Mefi…
I’m right here, dearie, agog at your posturings.  Quantum indeterminism isn’t like most other physical laws in that it assigns probabilities to outcomes, rather than enumerating precisely quantifiable/determinable causal relations.  Indeterminacy seems to be a fundamental property of nature.  I thought that was clear enough.

ETA:  You write “What about the indeterministic nature of physics that drives chemistry?”  At the level of chemical interactions, the participating agglomerates of matter (atoms and molecules) behave largely deterministically as far as physics is concerned.

'Luthon64
« Last Edit: March 11, 2010, 14:30:44 PM by Mefiante, Reason: Non-dualistic, determinist-materialist teleologisation » Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #17 on: March 11, 2010, 14:23:26 PM »

The problem with QI is that its apparent inherent randomness may or may not be true. This in turn leads to it being a very convenient piece of ammo for god-o'-the-gaps type arguments, like the existence of free will.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 11, 2010, 14:44:32 PM »

That on its own would be bad enough, but in reality it’s actually much worse.  Bits of QM are regularly abducted by poseurs of various stripes and subverted to “explain” and “prove” all sorts of twaddle and charlatanry, not just spun into quasi-religious claptrap.  QM appeals to our sense of the mysterious because it seems completely weird in terms of our usual experience of the world, its language is arcane mathematics and its role in explaining the universe is both central and fundamental.  It’s no wonder that it has become a target of just about every woo-woo merchant who aims to thrill an ignorant audience.

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #19 on: March 11, 2010, 14:47:10 PM »

Dude, do you even know what dualism is? You must either be incredibly dense, or deliberatly dishonest, to claim that determinism doesn't pertain to dualism.
Humour me.

Quote
Even if that is true, so what? That still does not make philosophical materialism and naturalism any less incoherent.

Some arguing by assertion. I'm impressed!
Sell philosophical materialism and naturalism. Let's see if you know what it is and entails.

Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #20 on: March 11, 2010, 14:48:58 PM »

5) That must be some kind of record for seeing through Teleological’s agenda-suffused codswallop.

Really? Where is Mefi…
I’m right here, dearie, agog at your posturings.  Quantum indeterminism isn’t like most other physical laws in that it assigns probabilities to outcomes, rather than enumerating precisely quantifiable/determinable causal relations.  Indeterminacy seems to be a fundamental property of nature.  I thought that was clear enough.

ETA:  You write “What about the indeterministic nature of physics that drives chemistry?”  At the level of chemical interactions, the participating agglomerates of matter (atoms and molecules) behave largely deterministically as far as physics is concerned.

'Luthon64

Largely? So... you get fully deterministic processes, largely deterministic processes, minimally deterministic processes and indeterministic processes? Humour me with this assertion of "largely deterministically".
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #21 on: March 11, 2010, 14:54:14 PM »

Humour me.

Sure. I'm laffing my arse off.


Sell philosophical materialism and naturalism. Let's see if you know what it is and entails.

Nah. Can't be arsed. I guess you win, right? Here, have a cookie.
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #22 on: March 11, 2010, 14:59:04 PM »

Largely? So... you get fully deterministic processes, largely deterministic processes, minimally deterministic processes and indeterministic processes? Humour me with this assertion of "largely deterministically".

I'm of the opinion that everything is deterministic, and remain unconvinced of QI, although I'm open to evidence of it (as opposed to mathematical models that subsume it). Our inability to predict particle behaviour at the quantum level doesn't imply that it's fundamentally unpredictable.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #23 on: March 11, 2010, 15:54:08 PM »

Humour me.

Sure. I'm laffing my arse off.
Just be clear on this. You are of the opinion the determinism is incompatible with dualism.
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #24 on: March 11, 2010, 16:16:32 PM »

If one asserts that consciousness cannot be split from physical structure and functioning (which I do), then yes.
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #25 on: March 11, 2010, 16:22:35 PM »

If one asserts that consciousness cannot be split from physical structure and functioning (which I do), then yes.
Define "physical structure" and what you understand it to be.
Define consciousness and what you understand it to be.
Give an explanation for everyday goal-directed behaviour by making use of your own terms and how you understand "physical structure".

I am also not sure you know what dualism (just like philosophical materialism and naturalism) is. Perhaps you can describe it in your own words just so that we can both understand each other and be on the same page.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 11, 2010, 16:50:49 PM »

Largely? So... you get fully deterministic processes, largely deterministic processes, minimally deterministic processes and indeterministic processes? Humour me with this assertion of "largely deterministically".
Yes.  That’s because quantum indeterminacy is scale-dependent.  More exactly, it’s state- and (mass-)energy/time dependent.  As a result, we conjecture virtual particles popping in and out of existence, and not, say, actual fully-formed ignoramuses who somehow manage to persist through space and time far beyond the limits set by the Uncertainty Principle… Roll Eyes



I'm of the opinion that everything is deterministic, and remain unconvinced of QI, although I'm open to evidence of it (as opposed to mathematical models that subsume it). Our inability to predict particle behaviour at the quantum level doesn't imply that it's fundamentally unpredictable.
I suggest having a good look at Bell’s Theorem.  The important points to note are (a) that it applies to all QM models independent of particular mathematical formulations (just as Gödel incompleteness applies to all axiomatic formal systems above a certain minimal complexity); (b) that it has been experimentally validated (though some challenges remain), and (c) that there’s therefore good reason to believe that indeterminacy can only be removed by introducing one or more global variables into QM systems.  Some hitherto unknown communicative aspect of spacetime could be the global variable.  Or, as some mystically-minded start-gun-jumping thinkers would have it, maybe it’s a (deistic) god… Roll Eyes

'Luthon64
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2010, 17:03:40 PM »

Largely? So... you get fully deterministic processes, largely deterministic processes, minimally deterministic processes and indeterministic processes? Humour me with this assertion of "largely deterministically".
Yes.  That’s because quantum indeterminacy is scale-dependent.  More exactly, it’s state- and (mass-)energy/time dependent.  As a result, we conjecture virtual particles popping in and out of existence, and not, say, actual fully-formed ignoramuses who somehow manage to persist through space and time far beyond the limits set by the Uncertainty Principle…

Thanks. So what do you have to say about the largely, fully or minimally deterministic or indterministic nature of particle decay and radioactive decay and would you compare those two? I am not sure in which category you would put it. Is there a cause to it or are these acausal features of reality? Would you put it in the same scientific manner as rwenzori does... tada "sh|t happens?

And what are your opinions on Bohmian mechanics?


« Last Edit: March 11, 2010, 17:17:46 PM by Teleological » Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 11, 2010, 20:44:00 PM »

It depends on how many decay-prone particles one is considering.  One cannot predict when, or even if, any one particular particle will decay.  Nor is there any known force or influence that one can subject it to in order to produce, hasten or delay a decay event.  On the other hand, if one considers a large collection of similar decay-prone particles, there are simple statistical laws that govern the collection, the principal parameter of which is the so-called half-life.  This quantity tells us how long it takes for half the particles in the sample to decay, but not which ones they are.  These laws become more and more certain as the number of particles in the sample increases, and, conversely, less and less certain as their number diminishes.  When the sample is down to a few tens of particles, the statistical half-life formulation is practically unusable and unreliable.  The situation is somewhat akin to tossing a fair coin: the more flips one does, the closer the relative heads-to-tails ratio will approach 50:50, but you can’t predict the outcome of any one specific toss with any certainty — just as you cannot predict with any certainty the specifics of how your words are going to get twisted by some predatory, axe-grinding ignoramus who can’t help being an unpleasant creep, as per certain ShoutBox entries…

De Broglie-Bohm theory doesn’t have the explanatory range or elegance of quantum field theory (or gauge field theories, generally).  Several and ongoing attempts to extend it thus have been unsuccessful.

'Luthon64
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #29 on: March 12, 2010, 08:18:49 AM »

If one asserts that consciousness cannot be split from physical structure and functioning (which I do), then yes.
Define "physical structure" and what you understand it to be.
Define consciousness and what you understand it to be.
Give an explanation for everyday goal-directed behaviour by making use of your own terms and how you understand "physical structure".

I am also not sure you know what dualism (just like philosophical materialism and naturalism) is. Perhaps you can describe it in your own words just so that we can both understand each other and be on the same page.

Nah. Can't be arsed. I guess you win, right? Here, have another cookie.
Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 12, 2010, 09:04:15 AM »

Quote from: Gogtjop
Nah. Can't be arsed. I guess you win, right? Here, have another cookie.

LMAO!!!!  Grin Grin Grin
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2010, 11:27:06 AM »

It depends on how many decay-prone particles one is considering.  One cannot predict when, or even if, any one particular particle will decay.  Nor is there any known force or influence that one can subject it to in order to produce, hasten or delay a decay event.  On the other hand, if one considers a large collection of similar decay-prone particles, there are simple statistical laws that govern the collection, the principal parameter of which is the so-called half-life.  This quantity tells us how long it takes for half the particles in the sample to decay, but not which ones they are.  These laws become more and more certain as the number of particles in the sample increases, and, conversely, less and less certain as their number diminishes.  When the sample is down to a few tens of particles, the statistical half-life formulation is practically unusable and unreliable.  

Is there a cause to it or are these acausal features of reality? Would you put it in the same scientific manner as rwenzori does... tada "sh|t happens?

If one asserts that consciousness cannot be split from physical structure and functioning (which I do), then yes.
Define "physical structure" and what you understand it to be.
Define consciousness and what you understand it to be.
Give an explanation for everyday goal-directed behaviour by making use of your own terms and how you understand "physical structure".

I am also not sure you know what dualism (just like philosophical materialism and naturalism) is. Perhaps you can describe it in your own words just so that we can both understand each other and be on the same page.
Win what? Nobody wins when one claims a loss or victory out of ignorance. So I am going to apply a bit of new atheist logic here if you don't mind:
There is no evidence that you are able to define and understand the above mentioned concepts, therefore there no need to believe you are knowledgable about them.

Where is bitchy and moany complaining about how others are evading questions?


« Last Edit: March 12, 2010, 11:40:07 AM by Teleological » Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 12, 2010, 12:19:13 PM »

Quote from: Teleological
Where is bitchy and moany complaining about how others are evading questions?

Oh, Oh, is that me?  Evil

Gogtjop, stop feeding Teleological biscuits and answer the question, don't be so evasive{{Slaps Gogtjop on the wrist}}  Grin Grin Grin

Teleological, have you considered the fact that Gogtjop is not answering your questions because he doesn't want to get drawn into a fruitless,long winded discussion with you, that will ultimately end up with everyone calling each other names.

Psssst, in case you haven't noticed, you tend to bring out the worst in people.
 
Besides, feeding you biscuits and patting you on your head is much more pleasant way of dealing with you.
 
XOXOX
{{Hugs and Kisses}}

Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2112



« Reply #33 on: March 12, 2010, 12:24:16 PM »

Quote from: Teleological
Where is bitchy and moany complaining about how others are evading questions?

Oh, Oh, is that me?  Evil

Gogtjop, stop feeding Teleological biscuits and answer the question, don't be so evasive{{Slaps Gogtjop on the wrist}}  Grin Grin Grin

Teleological, have you considered the fact that Gogtjop is not answering your questions because he doesn't want to get drawn into a fruitless,long winded discussion with you, that will ultimately end up with everyone calling each other names.

Psssst, in case you haven't noticed, you tend to bring out the worst in people.
 
Besides, feeding you biscuits and patting you on your head is much more pleasant way of dealing with you.
 
XOXOX
{{Hugs and Kisses}}


LMAO

I'm generally a very loveable person too. I'll add my lovies and huggies to this thread.

{{{{{*****}}}}}}}
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #34 on: March 12, 2010, 12:33:59 PM »

Quote from: Teleological
Where is bitchy and moany complaining about how others are evading questions?

Oh, Oh, is that me?  Evil

Gogtjop, stop feeding Teleological biscuits and answer the question, don't be so evasive{{Slaps Gogtjop on the wrist}}  Grin Grin Grin

Teleological, have you considered the fact that Gogtjop is not answering your questions because he doesn't want to get drawn into a fruitless,long winded discussion with you, that will ultimately end up with everyone calling each other names.

Psssst, in case you haven't noticed, you tend to bring out the worst in people.
 
Besides, feeding you biscuits and patting you on your head is much more pleasant way of dealing with you.
 
XOXOX
{{Hugs and Kisses}}


Greaaat, now it is my fault if people have bad sides and showing it. Where is the love man, think...
Logged
mdg
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +5/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 337



WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 12, 2010, 12:43:05 PM »

Quote from: Teleological
think...

Not today, it's Friday.....tralalalalalala

I'm in the mood for spreading love, Telly old bean..... Grin

Here, have another biscuit and lots more hugs

XOXOXOXOXOXOX
Logged
Gogtjop
Guest
« Reply #36 on: March 12, 2010, 13:29:13 PM »

There is no evidence that you are able to define and understand the above mentioned concepts, therefore there no need to believe you are knowledgable about them.

Sure, chief. I'm out of Romany Creams, but I'm sure I can dig up a stale Marie for you?
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3752


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 12, 2010, 16:23:59 PM »

Is there a cause to it or are these acausal features of reality? Would you put it in the same scientific manner as rwenzori does... tada "sh|t happens?
As far as we know, individual decay events, whether particle or radioactive, are completely spontaneous and unpredictable.  As mentioned before, “{there is no} known force or influence that one can subject {a decay-prone particle} to in order to produce, hasten or delay a decay event.”  That means we lack understanding of a cause for such events, if there even is one.  Indeed, to the best of our present knowledge, decay has no cause and is truly random.  Nonetheless, the degree of decay proneness of matter can be characterised in terms of its half-life, which quantity can be viewed as an inverse measure of its propensity for decay: the shorter the half-life, the more “eager” a particle is to decay, i.e. the more probable it is to decay within a given period of time.

While generally unwelcome in science, the “coprophanetetical hypothesis” is at present what best accounts for individual decay events (and certain other subatomic phenomena).

'Luthon64
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [All]   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.687 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 26, 2019, 10:44:41 AM
Privacy Policy