Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.raspberry-pi > #25580 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-01-07 10:33 +0000 |
| Last post | 2021-01-10 13:27 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 141 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.raspberry-pi
Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-07 10:33 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-07 14:49 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2021-01-07 16:37 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-07 18:12 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-07 19:12 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2021-01-08 22:16 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2021-01-08 18:04 +0200
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? dave@661.org (David Griffith) - 2021-01-08 22:50 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 08:23 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-09 08:57 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-09 09:24 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 10:41 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-09 11:58 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 13:51 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? A. Dumas <alexandre@dumas.fr.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:19 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:55 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-10 11:53 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-10 13:00 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-09 14:29 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2021-01-09 18:02 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-10 08:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2021-01-10 16:54 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-10 18:12 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2021-01-10 21:07 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:44 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-11 11:39 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 12:30 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 20:36 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:43 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-11 18:23 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2021-01-11 20:50 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-11 20:56 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-11 21:17 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-11 22:04 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 04:50 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 19:00 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-12 19:52 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 12:51 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-13 13:29 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 14:17 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 13:42 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-13 15:25 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-12 19:57 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 20:57 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 12:54 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-13 13:34 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Nikolaj Lazic <nlazicBEZ_OVOGA@mudrac.ffzg.hr> - 2021-01-13 14:30 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 20:45 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-12 21:05 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 21:38 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:35 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:07 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 20:08 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:02 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 18:33 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 19:25 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-13 20:56 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 21:13 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 06:31 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 05:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-14 10:26 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 11:27 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-14 13:53 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 14:32 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:01 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:19 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-10 12:01 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-10 15:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-10 16:21 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-10 22:08 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-11 05:55 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-11 14:58 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 15:33 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-11 23:32 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-11 23:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-12 00:02 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-12 01:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 18:55 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-12 07:41 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2021-01-12 09:42 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? nospam.Richard.Falken@f1.n770.z6694.fidonet.org (Richard Falken) - 2021-01-12 05:14 +1300
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-12 07:41 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Pancho <Pancho.Dontmaileme@outlook.com> - 2021-01-12 09:15 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-12 10:26 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-12 10:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-12 11:21 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 11:25 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-12 11:56 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 12:02 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-12 19:01 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-12 19:52 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2021-01-12 22:46 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 12:55 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 13:28 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 14:24 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-13 18:38 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:49 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Axel Berger <Spam@Berger-Odenthal.De> - 2021-01-14 08:37 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-13 21:20 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-13 21:53 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2021-01-14 03:03 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 06:14 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-10 22:16 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? nospam.Richard.Falken@f1.n770.z6644.fidonet.org (Richard Falken) - 2021-01-10 17:09 +1300
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 04:17 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2021-01-11 17:34 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2021-01-11 09:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 11:14 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 21:00 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 22:09 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:14 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-11 11:50 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 21:08 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:38 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:23 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 20:16 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2021-01-14 09:44 +0100
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2021-01-13 21:06 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 12:29 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-11 12:46 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-11 13:54 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 21:27 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:52 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 19:36 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-13 21:16 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-14 06:22 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 21:26 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-13 13:51 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-12 20:57 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:40 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-10 08:43 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-09 14:59 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 10:11 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2021-01-09 09:56 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-09 10:41 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-01-09 16:59 -0500
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> - 2021-01-09 23:24 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2021-01-10 08:29 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2021-01-10 09:48 +0000
Re: Will raspberry get ECC support? Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-01-10 13:27 -0500
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 13:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20210113134223.6a296679bad2dcc150f567a6@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #25830 |
On 13 Jan 2021 13:29:51 GMT TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > On 13 Jan 2021 at 12:51:13 GMT, The Natural Philosopher > > The reason the creationists believe what they do - and I spent an > > interesting dinner party finding out, is that there is, for them, only > > One True Word, and that's in the King James Bible. All else is delusion > > inspired by the devil > > So you have to believe in the Devil, for starters, an entity I don't > believe in and for which I've never seen any evidence. Nope, you just have to accept that there are people who do. > And then there's King James, eh? I wonder why that one. My SWMBO, who did That translation was supposed to have been guided by God or somesuch, I forget the exact details. > some theology at Uni, says that any modern version of the Bible has been > copied and translated back and forth over the centuries by scribes with > greater or lesser degrees of care, and greater or lesser detailed > knowledge of the languages they were translating from, that you're bound Hence the need for a translation guided by God to be the official version. You either believe this stuff or you don't - for the record I don't. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@mydomain.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 15:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtn3d3$hbh$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25824 |
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 12:51:13 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > The reason the creationists believe what they do - and I spent an > interesting dinner party finding out, is that there is, for them, only > One True Word, and that's in the King James Bible. All else is delusion > inspired by the devil > I hadn't realised that the King James is their unshakable foundation, when there are so many versions to choose from. If you didn't listen to it, I can thoroughly recommend the Radio 4 mini series "A History of the Bible" by John Barton. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000qlrx/episodes/player I'm not of the religious persuasion, but I think that series is excellent and I learnt a lot from hearing it. -- -- Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-12 19:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20210112195721.a7945f8f4b48a2db8dcb8da0@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #25795 |
On 12 Jan 2021 19:00:21 GMT TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in > 4004 BC, then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 > seconds ago, no I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago. Why go for such extravagance ? All that's required is now. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-12 20:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i66gp0Fe12eU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #25800 |
On 12 Jan 2021 at 19:57:21 GMT, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On 12 Jan 2021 19:00:21 GMT > TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > >> If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in >> 4004 BC, then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 >> seconds ago, no I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago. > > Why go for such extravagance ? All that's required is now. That's equally valid, yes. -- Tim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 12:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtmqid$5lv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25800 |
On 12/01/2021 19:57, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > On 12 Jan 2021 19:00:21 GMT > TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > >> If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in >> 4004 BC, then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 >> seconds ago, no I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago. > > Why go for such extravagance ? All that's required is now. > Indeed. And that is not inconsistent with some interpretations of the world, where time space and the material world are simply a rather inadequate way of relating to the Mysterious All. A view that is becoming less inconsistent with science the more physics pushes the limits of quantum reality... -- There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent renewable energy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 13:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i68b7nFe12eU11@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #25825 |
On 13 Jan 2021 at 12:54:35 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 12/01/2021 19:57, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: >> On 12 Jan 2021 19:00:21 GMT >> TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: >> >>> If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in >>> 4004 BC, then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 >>> seconds ago, no I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago. >> >> Why go for such extravagance ? All that's required is now. >> > Indeed. And that is not inconsistent with some interpretations of the > world, where time space and the material world are simply a rather > inadequate way of relating to the Mysterious All. > > A view that is becoming less inconsistent with science the more physics > pushes the limits of quantum reality... Of course, at any point in history one could take the view that Now is good enough, and that any inconsistencies we observe are just us noticing the folks at Reality Control adjusting the scenery. In fact for us today, we'd not have to bother worrying about dark matter keeping the galaxies together, because they were only created 10**-43 secs ago and that in a million years held together only by Newton/Einstein they will fly apart doesn't matter. Convenient that! -- Tim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nikolaj Lazic <nlazicBEZ_OVOGA@mudrac.ffzg.hr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 14:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnrvu111.gmd.nlazicBEZ_OVOGA@mudrac.ffzg.hr> |
| In reply to | #25800 |
Dana Tue, 12 Jan 2021 19:57:21 +0000, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> napis'o: > On 12 Jan 2021 19:00:21 GMT > TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > >> If you're one of those who is going to accept that it all started in >> 4004 BC, then it would be equally valid to accept that it all started 2 >> seconds ago, no I mean 3, sorry, no hold on, 4 secs ago. > > Why go for such extravagance ? All that's required is now. And not I remembered one episode of Twilight zone... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Matter_of_Minutes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-12 20:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2e2svfpiuf6tkt7kgn4vtholv77do8q97n@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #25766 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 04:50:12 +0000, in <rtj9q5$jkr$1@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >In the end conventional science versus creation science is about what >you find the most inconceivable - a Big Bang N billion years ago in >which a broken symmetry started time in the exact way it appears, or a >supernal Being who dreamed it all up a few thousand years ago and faked >it to *look like* it was N billion years old. Or whatever the current >figure is. > >And those are not the only narratives that exist. And they are in the >end metaphysical. They can't be proved to be correct, only more or less >useful, in any given context. > >Its not turtles all the way down, it's *models*. Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief" to hang its hat on. -- Jim H
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-12 21:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20210112210530.699aeae0650ac684503cd6a8@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #25802 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:45:59 +0000 Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief" > to hang its hat on. Ultimately it does not, science hangs its hat on the belief that the universe actually is self consistent rather than just appearing to be so most of the time. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-12 21:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i66j6aFe12eU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #25810 |
On 12 Jan 2021 at 21:05:30 GMT, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:45:59 +0000 > Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief" >> to hang its hat on. > > Ultimately it does not, science hangs its hat on the belief that the > universe actually is self consistent rather than just appearing to be so > most of the time. And that what appears to be the case is likely actually the case, and not just made to appear so as an almighty joke played on us saps by an Almighty trying to be witty. -- Tim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 13:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtmsv6$m8o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25811 |
On 12/01/2021 21:38, TimS wrote:
> And that what appears to be the case is likely actually the case, and not just
> made to appear so as an almighty joke played on us saps by an Almighty trying
> to be witty.
That of course is why you need to really understand the Matrix proposition.
That what appears to be the case could actually be utterly and
completely wrong.
And that is why Einstein smashed materialism unwittingly. He came up
with an equivalent narrative that was utterly different from Newtonian
metaphysics.
Which was true? They couldn't *both* be true. And that shattered the
assumption of materialism, that the world in facts was pretty much the
way it appeared to be, with all the secrete hidden Laws swept up into a
tidy bundle of linear differential equations..we kept the linear
differential equations, but we traded in absolute time and absolute flat
space for accuracy of prediction.
And now with quantum physics, we are trading in strict Causality as well.
And that is why philosophers of science have retreated from the position
that you espouse, to a more useful working relationship with science,
not as revealing facts, but as the construction of efficient models that
work and give accurate predictions
God theories work, but not to give accurate predictions. They work to
bring meaning to peoples lives and to regulate the behaviour of societies.
Once you abandon the idea that science or materialism and its underlying
assumptions, its 'a-prioris', are the One True Stick, and see them just
as another set of assumptions that need to be made to achieve certain
things then you realised religion is no different except in its purpose.
Neither has any monopoly on the Truth. Both are in the end inductive
hypotheses - working from effects to causes - and therefore subject to
the Problem of Induction', namely that given an effect, the here and now
experience of your life, you cannot unequivocally say what *causes* it,
and indeed the notion that *something must have*, is another unwarranted
assumption that you are making.
That the material world, space time, and our normal reasonable
assumptions of cause and effect *work*, especially in physics (though
less well in politics) is, in the end *not* 'strong evidence' that they
are *correct*. Newton could have said the same about his forces, Neo
about the Matrix. Galileo did say that about his heliocentrism, and yet
all of them proved to be only limited approximate *models*. Which is
precisely what the Catholic church tried to tell Galileo.
To say more than that is to claim certainty where none exists, We appear
to be beings that do not have unlimited computing power at our disposal,
and the approximation of a 'real solid objective world out there,
comprised mostly of 'things' we can ignore because 'they don't eat us
and we can't eat them'' is a *useful* way to handle it. A good ad hoc
working *model*. And if you can't handle the loneliness, and absolute
lack of any hint as to what you ought to be doing about it, by all
means shove an omniscient-creator-that-gives-a-shit in there, if it gets
you through the night.
Religion and science have their place. But neither is demonstrably true
or indeed can be said to have any decidable truth content.
My argument is to dethrone *both*, and see them for what they are.
Useful *models* that in their own way work, but neither of which should
ever be held up to the the One and Only True Stick.
--
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."
- Bertrand Russell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 19:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c9fuvf5hm6g6jv46h9b1vfehi167nctdtk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #25833 |
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:35:34 +0000, in <rtmsv6$m8o$1@dont-email.me>, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 12/01/2021 21:38, TimS wrote: >> And that what appears to be the case is likely actually the case, and not just >> made to appear so as an almighty joke played on us saps by an Almighty trying >> to be witty. > >That of course is why you need to really understand the Matrix proposition. > >That what appears to be the case could actually be utterly and >completely wrong. > >And that is why Einstein smashed materialism unwittingly. He came up >with an equivalent narrative that was utterly different from Newtonian >metaphysics. Utterly different in terms of the mathematics, but the result for objects observable by Newton is essentially unchanged. It's only at the infinitesimally small and incredibly massive scale that Newton, Einstein, and Quantum theory differ. >Which was true? They couldn't *both* be true. And that shattered the >assumption of materialism, that the world in facts was pretty much the >way it appeared to be, with all the secrete hidden Laws swept up into a >tidy bundle of linear differential equations..we kept the linear >differential equations, but we traded in absolute time and absolute flat >space for accuracy of prediction. > >And now with quantum physics, we are trading in strict Causality as well. > >And that is why philosophers of science have retreated from the position >that you espouse, to a more useful working relationship with science, >not as revealing facts, but as the construction of efficient models that >work and give accurate predictions > >God theories work, but not to give accurate predictions. They work to >bring meaning to peoples lives and to regulate the behaviour of societies. But assertions about God are essentially infinitely less provable than scientific assertions about physical objects. >Once you abandon the idea that science or materialism and its underlying >assumptions, its 'a-prioris', are the One True Stick, and see them just >as another set of assumptions that need to be made to achieve certain >things then you realised religion is no different except in its purpose. I think you've stepped squarely into the arena of sophistry with this. >Neither has any monopoly on the Truth. Both are in the end inductive >hypotheses - working from effects to causes - and therefore subject to >the Problem of Induction', namely that given an effect, the here and now >experience of your life, you cannot unequivocally say what *causes* it, >and indeed the notion that *something must have*, is another unwarranted >assumption that you are making. > >That the material world, space time, and our normal reasonable >assumptions of cause and effect *work*, especially in physics (though >less well in politics) is, in the end *not* 'strong evidence' that they >are *correct*. Newton could have said the same about his forces, Neo >about the Matrix. Galileo did say that about his heliocentrism, and yet >all of them proved to be only limited approximate *models*. Which is >precisely what the Catholic church tried to tell Galileo. The Catholic church wasn't dealing in anything but belief and a fear that an unprovable religious view would be proven incorrect whether or not the view held by Galileo was perfect. It was close enough to throughly disprove the view of the church and thus Galileo had to be silenced. It would be best if science left the unprovable beliefs of religion alone simply because belief by definition is unprovable one way or another. And for religion to leave the views of science that accurately describe the world we can observe alone... especially when they're thoroughly provable. >To say more than that is to claim certainty where none exists, We appear >to be beings that do not have unlimited computing power at our disposal, >and the approximation of a 'real solid objective world out there, >comprised mostly of 'things' we can ignore because 'they don't eat us >and we can't eat them'' is a *useful* way to handle it. A good ad hoc >working *model*. And if you can't handle the loneliness, and absolute >lack of any hint as to what you ought to be doing about it, by all >means shove an omniscient-creator-that-gives-a-shit in there, if it gets >you through the night. No problem, but don't shove him down the throat of those who don't care to believe... unless one can provide the same level of proof for the existence of such a supreme being as science can provide for its assertions. >Religion and science have their place. But neither is demonstrably true >or indeed can be said to have any decidable truth content. Sophistry. >My argument is to dethrone *both*, and see them for what they are. >Useful *models* that in their own way work, but neither of which should >ever be held up to the the One and Only True Stick. I know someone who is deeply religious and too often pushes his beliefs well past the point of being annoying. When I get tired of it I ask him to "prove it" at which point he goes off on a well prepared and rehearsed tangent involving the nature of absolute truth. I ask him to define some of the words he uses. The end result is that he goes in circles and can't prove anything... doesn't even try to prove anything just goes on about the nature of absolute truth... all of which doesn't mean that a God absolutely doesn't exist, but that it can't be proven and should be left in the realm of belief and those who don't believe should be spared from having it shoved down their throats. Science is built on demonstrably provable things with more recent theorys being subject to acceptable proof before being widely accepted. Science and religion should stay out of each others arena despite the interesting and amusing debates that arise when they don't. -- Jim H
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 20:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtnk0f$568$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25852 |
On 13/01/2021 19:07, Jim H wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 13:35:34 +0000, in <rtmsv6$m8o$1@dont-email.me>, > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 12/01/2021 21:38, TimS wrote: >>> And that what appears to be the case is likely actually the case, and not just >>> made to appear so as an almighty joke played on us saps by an Almighty trying >>> to be witty. >> >> That of course is why you need to really understand the Matrix proposition. >> >> That what appears to be the case could actually be utterly and >> completely wrong. >> >> And that is why Einstein smashed materialism unwittingly. He came up >> with an equivalent narrative that was utterly different from Newtonian >> metaphysics. > > Utterly different in terms of the mathematics, but the result for > objects observable by Newton is essentially unchanged. It's only at > the infinitesimally small and incredibly massive scale that Newton, > Einstein, and Quantum theory differ. > But that is not the point, you have changed ground Jim. Which is *true*? Flast space and time and forces, or bent space and relative tine? >> Which was true? They couldn't *both* be true. And that shattered the >> assumption of materialism, that the world in facts was pretty much the >> way it appeared to be, with all the secrete hidden Laws swept up into a >> tidy bundle of linear differential equations..we kept the linear >> differential equations, but we traded in absolute time and absolute flat >> space for accuracy of prediction. >> >> And now with quantum physics, we are trading in strict Causality as well. >> >> And that is why philosophers of science have retreated from the position >> that you espouse, to a more useful working relationship with science, >> not as revealing facts, but as the construction of efficient models that >> work and give accurate predictions >> >> God theories work, but not to give accurate predictions. They work to >> bring meaning to peoples lives and to regulate the behaviour of societies. > > But assertions about God are essentially infinitely less provable than > scientific assertions about physical objects. No assertion is provably true. That is the problem of induction. The dog that didn't bark in the night didn't bark because.,... ...it was in another dimension at the time ...it was drugged and asleep ...it was gagged and tied up out of earshot ...pixies had stolen its bark ...it barked and there was no one there to hear it. ...it had a sore throat. ...it didn't like the horse (which had kicked it once, and because it was actually a hyper intelligent denizen of Xaragon V, it let the horse get what was coming to it. ...etc. Occam instructs us to pick the simplest not because its true, but because since we cannot know which one is true, we can at least be lazy and pick the easiest one to handle Popper made the point. *Scientific* propositions must be provable to be *false*, potentially. We start with effects, we posit causes, if the posited causes cannot provide the required effects, we bin them, if they cannot be tested to see if they provide the required effects, they are metaphysical and not science. If they can be tested and don't fail the tests, they are science. God theories cannot be tested. They are not science. > >> Once you abandon the idea that science or materialism and its underlying >> assumptions, its 'a-prioris', are the One True Stick, and see them just >> as another set of assumptions that need to be made to achieve certain >> things then you realised religion is no different except in its purpose. > > I think you've stepped squarely into the arena of sophistry with this. > That just means you haven't understood it. >> Neither has any monopoly on the Truth. Both are in the end inductive >> hypotheses - working from effects to causes - and therefore subject to >> the Problem of Induction', namely that given an effect, the here and now >> experience of your life, you cannot unequivocally say what *causes* it, >> and indeed the notion that *something must have*, is another unwarranted >> assumption that you are making. >> >> That the material world, space time, and our normal reasonable >> assumptions of cause and effect *work*, especially in physics (though >> less well in politics) is, in the end *not* 'strong evidence' that they >> are *correct*. Newton could have said the same about his forces, Neo >> about the Matrix. Galileo did say that about his heliocentrism, and yet >> all of them proved to be only limited approximate *models*. Which is >> precisely what the Catholic church tried to tell Galileo. > > The Catholic church wasn't dealing in anything but belief and a fear > that an unprovable religious view would be proven incorrect whether or > not the view held by Galileo was perfect. It was close enough to > throughly disprove the view of the church and thus Galileo had to be > silenced. No that isn't what happened. The church was perfectly happy that Galileo teach the method as a way of calculating planetary orbits. What thy objected to was his insistence that it was 'true' > > It would be best if science left the unprovable beliefs of religion > alone simply because belief by definition is unprovable one way or > another. And for religion to leave the views of science that > accurately describe the world we can observe alone... especially when > they're thoroughly provable. But they are *not* provable. > >> To say more than that is to claim certainty where none exists, We appear >> to be beings that do not have unlimited computing power at our disposal, >> and the approximation of a 'real solid objective world out there, >> comprised mostly of 'things' we can ignore because 'they don't eat us >> and we can't eat them'' is a *useful* way to handle it. A good ad hoc >> working *model*. And if you can't handle the loneliness, and absolute >> lack of any hint as to what you ought to be doing about it, by all >> means shove an omniscient-creator-that-gives-a-shit in there, if it gets >> you through the night. > > No problem, but don't shove him down the throat of those who don't > care to believe... unless one can provide the same level of proof for > the existence of such a supreme being as science can provide for its > assertions. > >> Religion and science have their place. But neither is demonstrably true >> or indeed can be said to have any decidable truth content. > > Sophistry. that's just your hand wavey way of being in denial. I am sad. > >> My argument is to dethrone *both*, and see them for what they are. >> Useful *models* that in their own way work, but neither of which should >> ever be held up to the the One and Only True Stick. > > I know someone who is deeply religious and too often pushes his > beliefs well past the point of being annoying. When I get tired of it > I ask him to "prove it" at which point he goes off on a well prepared > and rehearsed tangent involving the nature of absolute truth. I ask > him to define some of the words he uses. The end result is that he > goes in circles and can't prove anything... doesn't even try to prove > anything just goes on about the nature of absolute truth... all of > which doesn't mean that a God absolutely doesn't exist, but that it > can't be proven and should be left in the realm of belief and those > who don't believe should be spared from having it shoved down their > throats. Science is built on demonstrably provable things with more > recent theorys being subject to acceptable proof before being widely > accepted. Science is not built on 'demonstrably provable things'. It is a set of consistent models that work, that's all. Your insistence that they are provable is your sophistry, your One True Stick. > > Science and religion should stay out of each others arena despite the > interesting and amusing debates that arise when they don't. > They are in the same arena. Both are areas of human knowledge, they have different attributes and purposes but like all knowledge, neither are demonstrably 'true' and only people who act on faith and belief would claim that either was. -- There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons that sound good. Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 13:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtmr0i$8c0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25810 |
On 12/01/2021 21:05, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:45:59 +0000
> Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief"
>> to hang its hat on.
>
> Ultimately it does not, science hangs its hat on the belief that the
> universe actually is self consistent rather than just appearing to be so
> most of the time.
>
Aha. You really get it.
--
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."
- Bertrand Russell
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 18:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <uiduvfh6p11jh3j30vpmitsb0dtf62e5u9@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #25810 |
On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 21:05:30 +0000, in <20210112210530.699aeae0650ac684503cd6a8@eircom.net>, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: >On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:45:59 +0000 >Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief" >> to hang its hat on. > > Ultimately it does not, science hangs its hat on the belief that the >universe actually is self consistent rather than just appearing to be so >most of the time. I'd like to hear your definition of "most." Granted the "Newtonian" view of the universe is slightly different from the quantum view, but the difference is miniscule when dealing with things that aren't almost infinitesimally small (particle physics) or incredibly massive (black holes). In those two cases the classical view - the only thing available to Newton and the common man - breaks down and the quantum view is required to explain things more exactly. In any case, we can observe and predict the behavior of physical things - whether by Newton or quantum - infinitely better than we can say anything provable about things that have nothing but belief to back them. I don't buy the *TOTAL* debunking of anything based only on "we can never know for sure and thus everything is only belief." This is little more than sophistry in my book. The smart money goes with widely accepted (among scientists) science as being correct at least as far as it goes. There always seems to be more that builds on what is already known. Rarely, at least in the last several centuries, does it throw everything we "know" into a cocked hat. That last said, I'd guess the poor "string theory" or "M theory" folks were a little disturbed when the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics was proven to exist when the string or M theory model had no Higgs boson. Back to the drawing board. Not everything necessarily debunked, but it's a huge problem for a theory to deny the existence of thing that's proven to exist. Now don't tell be we only "believe" Higgs bosons exist. -- Jim H
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 19:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20210113192531.281e0424e23b7b279967272e@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #25850 |
On Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:33:16 +0000 Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 21:05:30 +0000, in > <20210112210530.699aeae0650ac684503cd6a8@eircom.net>, Ahem A Rivet's > Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > >On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 20:45:59 +0000 > >Jim H <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > >> Except... science has something much more demonstrable than "belief" > >> to hang its hat on. > > > > Ultimately it does not, science hangs its hat on the belief that > > the > >universe actually is self consistent rather than just appearing to be so > >most of the time. > > I'd like to hear your definition of "most." I've yet to see it not appear to be self consistent. > I don't buy the *TOTAL* debunking of anything based only on "we can > never know for sure and thus everything is only belief." It is however the reality of the situation. We can never know for sure, we can only build the best models we can. > This is > little more than sophistry in my book. The smart money goes with > widely accepted (among scientists) science as being correct at least For sure - but that doesn't make it true, it just makes it a sensible belief. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 19:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtnimk$rck$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25850 |
On 13/01/2021 18:33, Jim H wrote: > I don't buy the*TOTAL* debunking of anything based only on "we can > never know for sure and thus everything is only belief." This is > little more than sophistry in my book. The smart money goes with > widely accepted (among scientists) science as being correct at least > as far as it goes. There always seems to be more that builds on what > is already known. Rarely, at least in the last several centuries, does > it throw everything we "know" into a cocked hat. The problem is deep and you are sweeping it under the carpet, and it goes to the heart of all 'knowledge' about the world, because all of it is ultimately *models* - inductive propositions that are more or less useful. Nowhere in any of it is there the solid testability that allows us to call it 'truth'. The real point here is not to dismantle ordinary knowledge that works pretty well, but to make us aware that ordinary knowledge that works pretty well is not the only take we can have on the universe. It is the antidote to 'One True Stickiness' that forces people to believe that they have it right, and other people have it wrong. Is Einstein truth, or just a model? - if truth then how come we believed in Newton? > > That last said, I'd guess the poor "string theory" or "M theory" folks > were a little disturbed when the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard > Model of particle physics was proven to exist when the string or M > theory model had no Higgs boson. Back to the drawing board. Not > everything necessarily debunked, but it's a huge problem for a theory > to deny the existence of thing that's proven to exist. > > Now don't tell be we only "believe" Higgs bosons exist. Of course we only believe it. We only believe ANYTHING exists in *any particular way*. It is simply another *explanation* for what is pretty tenth hand *experience*. I assume from your position that you are ultimately a materialist who believes something like 'consciousness is an emergent property of matter'. I merely note that if you flip that and assume that the material world is, at least in part, an emergent property of consciousness, a lot of quantum stuff becomes a lot easier to model - and the 'problem of consciousness' vanishes. Or better still try a model along the lines of Kant's transcendental idealism which is 'the objective world exists, but it isn't the world of our experience: That is modulated by our consciousness to create something we can relate to'. Also, the further from inanimate objects we get, the more Idealism works. When explaining people's behaviour, what counts more, what the world *actually* is? Or what they *think* it is? A multi-trillion global industry exists to ignore the former and control the latter. Materialism works reasonably well for physics. Idealism rules social science. Everyone thinks they have the One Tue Stick. That view needs to be transcended. -- "What do you think about Gay Marriage?" "I don't." "Don't what?" "Think about Gay Marriage."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 20:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i6953nFe12eU13@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #25858 |
On 13 Jan 2021 at 19:46:28 GMT, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 13/01/2021 18:33, Jim H wrote: >> I don't buy the*TOTAL* debunking of anything based only on "we can >> never know for sure and thus everything is only belief." This is >> little more than sophistry in my book. The smart money goes with >> widely accepted (among scientists) science as being correct at least >> as far as it goes. There always seems to be more that builds on what >> is already known. Rarely, at least in the last several centuries, does >> it throw everything we "know" into a cocked hat. > The problem is deep and you are sweeping it under the carpet, and it > goes to the heart of all 'knowledge' about the world, because all of it > is ultimately *models* - inductive propositions that are more or less > useful. Nowhere in any of it is there the solid testability that allows > us to call it 'truth'. > > The real point here is not to dismantle ordinary knowledge that works > pretty well, but to make us aware that ordinary knowledge that works > pretty well is not the only take we can have on the universe. It is the > antidote to 'One True Stickiness' that forces people to believe that > they have it right, and other people have it wrong. > > Is Einstein truth, or just a model? - if truth then how come we believed > in Newton? Newton's gravity did as good a job as could be measured against at the time. The anomaly pointed up by the precession of the axis of Mercury's orbit hadn't been noticed yet, and it was a *huge* advance on what went before. Remember also that if you simplify Einstein's theory (presumably by setting speed of light to infinity), then AIUI Einstein's theory simplifies down to exactly Newton. So there's no real conflict. -- Tim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-13 21:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20210113211308.3a2e61a2683de6abc647ca91@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #25863 |
On 13 Jan 2021 20:56:23 GMT TimS <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote: > On 13 Jan 2021 at 19:46:28 GMT, The Natural Philosopher > > Is Einstein truth, or just a model? - if truth then how come we > > believed in Newton? > > Newton's gravity did as good a job as could be measured against at the > time. The anomaly pointed up by the precession of the axis of Mercury's Yes it is a model that delivers a *very* good approximation to observation. > orbit hadn't been noticed yet, and it was a *huge* advance on what went > before. For sure. > Remember also that if you simplify Einstein's theory (presumably by > setting speed of light to infinity), then AIUI Einstein's theory > simplifies down to exactly Newton. So there's no real conflict. That is indeed true, and being in close agreement to Newton is a requirement for any model of dynamics because that is a very good approximation to observation. However we can be quite certain that none of Newtonian Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory ... are in fact accurate descriptions of how the universe really works because *all* of them fail to match observation under some conditions. So we do *not* have a handle on 'the truth' just some pretty good looking approximations. The faith part in science comes in with the assumption that it is possible to construct ever more accurate models because we are modelling something that really does behave predictably. There is no way of knowing that the universe does behave predictably everywhere and at all times, but if it doesn't then we can't model it so that is a useful assumption that has so far not been invalidated. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-14 06:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rtoofe$63g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #25867 |
On 13/01/2021 21:13, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote: > The faith part in science comes in with the assumption that it is > possible to construct ever more accurate models because we are modelling > something that really does behave predictably. There is no way of knowing > that the universe does behave predictably everywhere and at all times, but > if it doesn't then we can't model it so that is a useful assumption that > has so far not been invalidated. Id put that differently, the faith part of it consists in ascribing absolute real objective status to what is in fact a world *view*, namely that the world is a picture painted by matter/energy on a canvas of flat space time, according to strict laws of Causality and Natural Law, all of which can be precisely expressed by linear or in some cases non linear partial differential equations. This grew out of a pre-enlightenment view that is more or less expressible as 'stuff happens, because...' by diminishing the role of 'spirit' from the 'creator of the material world' to that of 'the detached observer' . 400 years on, give or take, its taken us a long way and people are naturally reluctant to abandon it. It's never been more than utter crap at explaining how people behave though. -- Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.raspberry-pi
csiph-web