Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #689728
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics, comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: Worshiping Ignorance. |
| Date | 2018-06-09 21:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fo2vkbFochoU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (5 earlier) <nfpSC.143891$wG5.139275@fx02.iad> <Jeff-Relf.Me@Jun.7--11.36pm.Seattle.2018> <iuxSC.158766$R51.149070@fx03.iad> <fo0qhdFbsq2U1@mid.individual.net> <fo0ttsFcl4oU1@mid.individual.net> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 19:55:56 -0700, Snit wrote: > On 6/8/18 6:58 PM, vallor wrote: >> On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 11:42:49 -0400, benj wrote: >> >>> On 6/8/2018 2:36 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: >>>> You (Ben) wrote: >>>>> IF there are no choices then there is CERTAINLY nothing to aspire >>>>> to, >>>>> no achievements to be made, >>>>> no credit for accomplishment, >>>>> nothing but death and confusion awaiting you. Sad. >>>> >>>> You worship ignorance. How is that any better ? >>> >>> No Rolf, YOU are the one worshiping ignorance. I keep telling you that >>> science is NOT religion but all you do is try to tell me what I >>> "believe" and then repeat your own religious dogma over and over as if >>> that proves something. Thumping your bible proves nothing. >>> >>>> We simply prefer the LeastBad "option", >>>> and we can't change what we prefer. >>> >>> And I say I can choose to do the opposite of what I prefer. And you >>> can't prove me wrong. All you can do is just stand their Screaming you >>> are right like baby Nads. >>> >>>> General Relativity's four dimensional TimeScape is static, eternal, >>>> perfectly causal... it is, at once, everything _and_ nothing. >>> >>> This is wrong from the very start, Rolf. Space-time is NOT static. It >>> can't be static because it warps due to the presence of mass and >>> because mass is not static neither can be space-time (to use that >>> bogus theory). >>> >>> And as for "eternal" You have NO way of knowing that. It is simply >>> your religious belief. Now as for "causal" the theory certainly is >>> causal. But that is no proof that EVERYTHING in the universe is >>> causal. MUCH in the universe and in science is causal. It's what makes >>> science work! >>> >>> A "true" timescape, on the other hand, would be called "time-space" >>> and it would consist of a hyper-dimensional matrix sometimes referred >>> to as the "multiverses". It contains ALL acts it is possible to >>> perpetrate in the universe. One could speculate such a timescape is >>> static, eternal, and perfectly causal. But human experience is none of >>> those things because it is produced by the passage of consciousness in >>> a path through that multi-dimensional timescape. The kicker here is >>> that when those paths are left to their own devices they coast forward >>> according to Newton's laws. That is called the "most probable future", >>> but there is an additional law which says that the path can be altered >>> by a "force" which in this case is will. That deflects the most >>> probable path and changes what one experiences as the "future". >>> >>> You listening, Rolf? I didn't think so. >> >> One way to deal with the "we don't have free will" folks is to believe >> them. >> >> Therefore, Jeff is nothing more than a philosophical zombie -- and he >> doesn't even know it, because he doesn't know what it is like to be >> conscious with free will. >> >> > How do you know if you have free will? If you have to ask that question, then you don't have it. I would leave it at that, but perhaps you are making a serious inquiry. In that case, I suggest you consider points made by some modern philosophers. This is very much wrapped up in the "hard" problem of consciousness, and without an appreciation of that, you can find yourself stuck in long- refuted 19th century determinism. One point is that the universe has already demonstrated it has non- deterministic processes, so there is the very real possibility that consciousness is also non-deterministic. Another one is that if free will is an illusion[*], it's very hard to shake off. If these ideas truly interest you, I suggest watching Dr. Searle's Google talk, found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCyKNtocdZE Good luck, and may the force be with you. -- -v [*] This is, of course, assuming you experience free will. If you don't experience your will as being free, then you belong in Jeff's category.
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-06 18:07 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 18:14 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-06 22:38 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 17:43 -0700
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-07 22:07 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 17:12 -0700
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-08 14:49 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 22:39 -0400
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-07 05:19 +0200
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 05:31 -0400
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-07 12:01 +0200
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 16:32 -0400
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-07 21:58 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 04:12 -0700
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? will <willscranton@butchersboulevard.commypanprofile> - 2018-06-08 14:38 +0000
Re: Can quantum measurement be rejected ? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-06-08 02:41 +0200
"Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 11:47 -0700
Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 19:00 +0000
We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 12:25 -0700
Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:35 -0400
Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-06 17:52 -0700
Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-06 18:15 -0700
No truth, Nothing to aspire to ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 18:21 -0700
Re: No truth, Nothing to aspire to ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 22:47 -0400
NO TRUTH. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 20:28 -0700
Re: NO TRUTH. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 05:32 -0400
Harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-07 11:18 -0700
Re: Harp playing, androgynous angels in the clouds ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-07 16:42 -0400
Ben Jacoby takes _pride_ in his randomness, I don't. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-07 14:15 -0700
Re: Ben Jacoby takes _pride_ in his randomness, I don't. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 02:20 -0400
Worshiping Ignorance. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-07 23:36 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-08 11:42 -0400
" I can choose to do the opposite of what I prefer " -- Ben Jacoby. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-08 10:17 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 01:58 +0000
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-08 19:55 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 21:37 +0000
EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 14:51 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-06-09 22:01 +0000
To a retard, _everything_ is "random". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 15:11 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 15:13 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-10 15:52 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-09 22:54 +0000
People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 16:40 -0700
Re: People are forever MisQuoting Einstein; I correct them. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:15 +0000
Putting words in Einstein's mouth. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 17:42 -0700
Re: Putting words in Einstein's mouth. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 00:59 +0000
God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 18:28 -0700
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 01:42 +0000
Mark Twain was a determinist. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 20:16 -0700
Re: Mark Twain was a determinist. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-10 12:48 -0400
Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-10 10:51 -0700
Re: Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:02 -0400
Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 09:20 -0700
Re: Quantum Mechanics is statistical, not complete. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:09 -0400
Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 14:32 -0700
Re: Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 14:33 -0700
No one can "prove" ThermoDynamics and/or General Relativity, 100.00000000%. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 15:00 -0700
Re: No one can "prove" ThermoDynamics and/or General Relativity, 100.00000000%. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 15:01 -0700
We assert _useful_ premises ( and ThermoDynamics is _Very_ useful ). Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 15:27 -0700
Re: Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 19:57 -0400
Re: Bell's theorem is just another "I don't know". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-12 17:11 +0000
SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein, and to me. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-12 12:03 -0700
Re: SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein, and to me. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 09:03 -0700
Enjoy your silly hat. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-13 14:46 -0700
Re: Enjoy your silly hat. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 08:20 -0700
Sex toys/dolls. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-15 00:44 -0700
Re: Sex toys/dolls. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 05:49 -0700
Re: Sex toys/dolls. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-15 11:47 -0400
MostChristian != BestChristian Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-15 13:46 -0700
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-09 19:37 -0700
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:59 -0400
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-06-10 03:51 +0000
Re: God Doesn't Play Dice, he's not an idiot; nor is he a "he". benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-10 12:50 -0400
Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-10 11:01 -0700
Re: Mark Twain, Einstein and Stephen Hawking are revered by nerds benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 11:06 -0400
Asleep, living in a dream. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 10:04 -0700
Re: Asleep, living in a dream. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 14:22 -0500
Re: Asleep, living in a dream. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:21 -0400
Your house is built on sand. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 14:43 -0700
Re: Putting words in Einstein's mouth. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-06-11 07:02 -0500
Quantum Mechanics is _not_ complete. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 09:41 -0700
Re: Quantum Mechanics is _not_ complete. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:17 -0400
"statistics is [sic] real" -- Ben Jacoby. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 14:39 -0700
Re: "statistics is [sic] real" -- Ben Jacoby. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-11 14:53 -0700
When I hear the word "Quantum", I replace it with the word "BullShit". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 15:09 -0700
Re: "statistics is [sic] real" -- Ben Jacoby. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 20:00 -0400
" I can't know " -- Bell's Theorem. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-11 19:29 -0700
Re: EINSTEIN's category, far from the Pope. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-09 22:28 -0400
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-06-09 14:53 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-09 16:41 -0700
If the truth is your enemy... Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-09 00:14 -0700
Re: Worshiping Ignorance. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-06-09 06:52 -0400
Re: We assert useful premises, disregarding the truth. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-06 21:22 +0000
I feel rich, very rich. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-06-06 14:39 -0700
Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:32 -0400
Re: "Quantum Mechanics" has no cause and effect, just probabilities. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-06 16:30 -0400
csiph-web