https://youtu.be/Hi6yPJvCFU0

Great interview with the string theorist who came up with M Theory.
I've never posted this before, except in a thread that got closed.

I agree with Kaku (and Einstein) 100%. What do you think they meant when they used the word, "god"?

You've never posted this before except for when you posted it before? Wow.

In the last thread, I asked "How many days before you post this argument again?" Silly me. It wasn't a matter of days. It took you only two hours start yet another thread on the same topic.

Oh God, please make it stop!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 01:16AM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You've never posted this before except for when
> you posted it before.
>
> Oh God, please make it stop!
Oh God quit being rude!
I posted it earlier today, then the thread got closed immediately afterwards. I thought it deserved discussion. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, nobody is forcing you to engage.

I have plenty intelligent to say about your complete mischaracterization of Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and other topics. But you ignore any substantive discussion, preferring instead to continue trumpeting your facile and incorrect tripe.

THAT is rude.



ETA: I really feel sad for that cat. I guess the odds are only 50/50 that it can sue for defamation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2019 08:12PM by Lot's Wife.

(recent New Yorker Cartoon)

Vetrinarian to bearded man in reception: "Mr. Schrodinger, about your cat: I have some good news, and some bad news."

:=\

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have plenty intelligent to say about your
> complete mischaracterization of Taoism, Buddhism,
> Confucianism, and other topics. But you ignore
> any substantive discussion, preferring instead to
> continue trumpeting your facile and incorrect
> tripe.
>
> THAT is rude.
>
>
>
> ETA: I really feel sad for that cat. I guess the
> odds are only 50/50 that it can sue for
> defamation.

ahahahahahahahaha I love you Lot's Wife.

And vice versa.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have plenty intelligent to say about your
> complete mischaracterization of Taoism, Buddhism,
> Confucianism, and other topics. But you ignore
> any substantive discussion, preferring instead to
> continue trumpeting your facile and incorrect
> tripe.
>
> THAT is rude.
>
>
>
> ETA: I really feel sad for that cat. I guess the
> odds are only 50/50 that it can sue for
> defamation.

I misspoke.

He co-founded string field theory, a subset of string theory.

My point remains. I appreciate you forcing me to sharpen my pencil. You remind me of my Mother.

Nor did he originate M theory, but wrote an important book on it

dogblogger,

Please make it stop!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dogblogger,
>
> Please make it stop!

LW stop being rude!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2019 08:12PM by schrodingerscat.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nor did he originate M theory, but wrote an
> important book on it
He co founded it, but please, go on. Keep missing the point.


https://www.aps.org/careers/physicists/profiles/kaku.cfm

Your source does not say Kaku either founded or co-founded M-theory. It doesn't even mention M-theory.

The wikipedia articles on string and M-theory have him joining the work well after it had started (decades after, actually). So dogblogger is right.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your source does not say Kaku either founded or
> co-founded M-theory. It doesn't even mention
> M-theory.
>
> The wikipedia articles on string and M-theory have
> him joining the work well after it had started
> (decades after, actually). So dogblogger is
> right.
He said himself in the video link In OP, "I wrote the formula unifying the Theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.The unified field theory."
Are you calling him a liar?

No, I am not calling him a liar. I am, however, saying that you didn't read that article you cited as support.

And I am noting that the quotation you just reproduced verbatim also fails to substantiate your description of Kaku as cofounder of M-theory, which, again, the quotation does not even mention.

Whether it is Laozi or Kaku or Einstein, you are not precise in your description of people, their credentials, or their thinking. That imprecision undermines your position.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2019 08:45PM by Lot's Wife.

Thanks. I must thank kori for resparking my interest in this. I'm pretty sure my translations, including Waley, survived the last move...we're still unpacking.

Kori, what happens when everyone agrees with you? What's your end game?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kori, what happens when everyone agrees with you?
> What's your end game?

I thought this is a forum for exMORmONs to discuss their transition out of MORmONism, into their more authentic selves. I am not only interested in self actualization, I am interested in existential discussions, with intelligent people.
Smart people typically research their way out of fraudulent abusive cults. Fortunately many of those smart people are here. But I wouldn't call most of you friends. I mean I'm sure we'd get along great in real life. But this aint real life. This is just a discussion amongst mostly like minded people.
But like almost all groups of like minded people, there's the danger of group think and us.vs.them mentality and arent we superior to those "others",
Resulting in wallowing in an echo chamber in self pity, grievances against the abusive cult we inheirited, and a general tendency towards cynical materialist nihlism.
That's not the black hole I want to head down. Thats the one I crawled out of over the past 13.8b illion yrs.
I want people who read this to know there are really good alternatives that transcend the age old tribal warfare between Theists and Atheists.

>
> I want people who read this
> to know there are really good
> alternatives that transcend
> the age old tribal warfare
> between Theists and Atheists.
>

So your answer to my question, "what's your end game...?" is the above? Alternatives? You want us to all agree that you've unified the thoughts of great men by using their words 'correctly', so where are the other alternatives?

Sure, there may be a couple of people where interested in 'tribal warfare' and they meet at the ballot box for the most part.

But a war between theists and atheists? I have a hard time imagining atheist coming together against a perceived common foe absent either,

1. An attack by the Theists

2. Forcible conscription into the army of a supposed atheist leadership.

But then I think I'm too much of a loner to be an atheist warmonger.

It seems that you hammer at us with such imprecision that there's no way either side is ever going to be satisfied. It's like you're still out knocking on doors, trying to rope in converts to your church. And I'm not aware of a single conversion!

What I keep reading is:

"This is what I believe and here are the people who believe it, too. I want you guys to agree that they, and by extension, me, are correct in our thinking."

...with a big helping of "if you don't agree with them, and me, there is something you're doing wrong and you should read what I'm saying and find a way to agree with me!"


Here's this:

Suppose a middle schooler who really likes learning, and turning things over in his mind, and who has heard names in science, but never studied anything you've ever cited; he decides, for whatever reason, that ghawd probably exists and that there are probably many of them and they probably live in Black Holes. He's happy with what to him is original thinking.

To him, it all fits. He's happy! Maybe he'll change his mind as he continues to grow...in fact it's quite likely he will!

Another thing: if Einstein were alive today, are you certain that he would agree with what you say he believes?

Finally, I don't care if people think as I do. Why are so driven to convert exmos to your way of seeing the world?

Apparently nobody here can answer the question, What do you think Kaku and Einstein meant when they used the word 'god'?
It seems to me like they were talking about the laws that govern nature.
I could be wrong, but that sounds a lot like the Tao, the way of Nature and Logos, the divine reason that permeayes and animates the cosmos.

Yes, Kaku and Einstein appear to have meant "the laws that govern nature." That is so obvious it doesn't need restatement and it represents a metaphorical term of art that, when rendered literal, they disavowed.

As for your effort to draw parallels (actually identities) with other intellectual traditions, it would be easier to engage in meaningful discussion if we could agree on the basics and also if you indicated a willingness to change your opinion in response to new information.

So in an attempt to initiate such a discussion, what have you read on Taoism?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, Kaku and Einstein appear to have meant "the
> laws that govern nature." That is so obvious it
> doesn't need restatement and it represents a
> metaphorical term of art that, when rendered
> literal, they disavowed.
>
> As for your effort to draw parallels (actually
> identities) with other intellectual traditions, it
> would be easier to engage in meaningful discussion
> if we could agree on the basics and also if you
> indicated a willingness to change your opinion in
> response to new information.
>
> So in an attempt to initiate such a discussion,
> what have you read on Taoism?

The Tao Te Ching

Okay, that book is divided into short chapters--usually just a paragraph or two. Can you indicate which of those chapters talks about God in any way?

I mean, just the other day we discussed the Japanese character for "God." The word was read "kami" but in Chinese is "shen." Yet "shen" is not used in the Daodejing. So what supports your interpretation?

I'm waiting, Kori. You say you want intelligent conversation on the topic, so let's get going with Taoism.

I posed a simple question on substance: what is your answer?

Still no response?

I'm starting to think you haven't really read the Daodejing.

Have you read any secondary books on Taoism? Could you name one or two so we can discuss them?

What do you consider the best English translation?

It's literally been decades since I was dedicated to any serious study of Taoism. Even then it was secondary to my primary interest in t'ai chi ch'uan, poring over the "T'ai Chi Classics".

I remember reading translations by Watts and Legge, in particular. I read several others with the hope of gleaning some sort of meaning from the differing perspectives, but the names of the translators elude me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 02:51PM by GregS.

Watts and Legg are classics, of course, and then there was Arthur Waley's more general treatments. As you know, all three of these authors write excellent English as well as being really good with the Chinese.

One of the things that Kori doesn't realize, when he associates the Tao with logos is that the usage in the first chapter of the Daodejing says pretty much the opposite. Logos means "word," and the first line of Laozi says words don't work with the Tao. He does this by using the character "Tao" in two different ways: to mean "The Way" but also as "describe (with words)." Thus

"The Tao that can be described (with words) is not the Real Tao."

But I don't think Kori has read the Daodejing, certainly not in whole and it is a short book, or Watts, Legg or any of the other respected commentators.

Intellectual discussion is difficult, if not impossible, when a participant hasn't done the basic groundwork.

Frankly, GregS, I don't think there are great English translations. The word "dao," for instance, has several meanings and the puns do not translate. This problem is even more difficult in the Zhuangzi, which is like James Joyce in the sense of using rhythms and sounds to drive points home that are not reflected in the actual words. But it is present in the Daodejing as well.

Moreover, there are rival texts. Perhaps 25 or 30 years ago, for example, a text was discovered in the Dunhuang caves. It differed in substantial ways and was in fact entitled the Dedaojing, with the first two characters reversed. So there's that.

My guess is that in English the best way to go is to read two or three of the classic translations and see how they handle different passages. That would give some sense of the plasticity of the ideas.

SC: "Apparently nobody here can answer the question, What do you think Kaku and Einstein meant when they used the word 'god'?
It seems to me like they were talking about the laws that govern nature."

COMMENT: Regarding Einstein, it is not true, as some insist, that when he identified God with the laws of nature he was speaking only metaphorically. Although he did not believe in a personal God, his view of God was nonetheless transcendent. Here are some of his comments on this very point:

"But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them [conceptions of God], even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it."

"The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole."

"How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."

(See Einstein, Ideas and Opinions (1954), page 138)

There is no question, from the above quotes and others, that Einstein viewed nature, and its laws as revealing a transcendent reality that underlies such laws. It is *that* reality that he identified with "God" and the "cosmic religious feeling."

_______________________________________________

SC: "I could be wrong, but that sounds a lot like the Tao, the way of Nature and Logos, the divine reason that permeayes and animates the cosmos."

COMMENT: I agree that on the surface there seems to be similarities between Einstein's "cosmic religious feeling" and various Eastern mystic traditions (I will defer to LW on that issue), but I doubt that Einstein would have made such a connection. Specifically, he would not be willing to assign *any* religious dogma to this "cosmic religious feeling," especially a dogma that was "mystical" in its orientation. Moreover, although he said it is "difficult to elucidate this feeling," he certainly would not engage in loose mystical descriptions, like "the logos."

Finally, I sympathize with those responses to this post that view this subject as tiresome. What possible difference does it make what Einstein, or any other scientist thinks about religion. Although some scientists *do* claim to have a special perspective on this issue, and sometimes rhetorically flaunt their rejection of religion, I find their rhetoric in this regard highly suspect. (See, for example, Sean Carroll or Richard Dawkins) In short, scientists have no better credentials to opine on this issue that any other thoughtful person.




I can assure you that as Einstein's ideas strayed from physics

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apparently nobody here can answer the question,
> What do you think Kaku and Einstein meant when
> they used the word 'god'?
> It seems to me like they were talking about the
> laws that govern nature.

The phrase "laws that govern nature" is intrinsically problematic.

It indicates a separate something from nature that is in control, to which nature is itself subservient. And it is easy to step from there to some sort of claim for God, most likely Deist or pantheist.

Further it assumes these laws can be known distinct from nature and then applied back to nature to somehow re-explain it.

Again, it is important to remember that science is only a model. It is not reality, only a partial model of our perceptions of reality. It is called the Standard Model. Not the Standard Reality, nor the Standard Nature, nor the Standard God.

When we say we have discovered a natural law, we commit the anthropomorphic fallacy, applying aspects of how our culture operates onto the natural world. It overstates what our model represents.

Any use of this phrase sets us up to make further errors in our thinking that is based on this phrase. It's a useful paraphrase and has appeal, but it's use is logically dangerous.

So when a scientist writes for a lay audience using these sorts of terms, or even "know the mind of god" it is clearly figurative language to bypass a lot content that would be uninteresting to or not comprehended by the lay audience.

Language shapes our thinking. It is easy to fall into these traps.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 03:34PM by dogblogger.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apparently nobody here can answer the question,
> What do you think Kaku and Einstein meant when
> they used the word 'god'?
> It seems to me like they were talking about the
> laws that govern nature.
> I could be wrong, but that sounds a lot like the
> Tao, the way of Nature and Logos, the divine
> reason that permeayes and animates the cosmos.

Or maybe we just don't consider the question worth answering. Maybe we don't consider Einstein's or Kaku's opinion on God or religion to be particularly important. You seem to be the only one obsessed with this. I agree with Henry when he says "In short, scientists have no better credentials to opine on this issue that any other thoughtful person."

What you keep doing is committing the fallacy of appeal to irrelevant authority

https://www.thoughtco.com/appeal-to-authority-logical-fallacy-1689120


"The appeal to (false or irrelevant) authority is a fallacy in which a rhetor (public speaker or writer) seeks to persuade an audience not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for the famous.

Also known as ipse dixit and ad verecundiam, which means "he himself said it" and "argument to modesty or respect" respectively, appeals to authority rely entirely upon the trust the audience has as a speaker's integrity and expertise on the matter at hand.

As W.L. Reese puts it in "Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion," though, "not every appeal to authority commits this fallacy, but every appeal to an authority with respect to matters outside his special province commits the fallacy." Essentially, what he means here is that although not all appeals to authority are fallacies, most are — especially by rhetors with no authority on the topic of discussion."


No matter how much of an expert in physics your scientists were/are, that does not necessarily make them experts in any other field.

[|] Wrote:
> No matter how much of an expert in physics your
> scientists were/are, that does not necessarily
> make them experts in any other field.

Einstein was the epitome of a genius, but he was also a wise man. Kaku is a wise man too. I pay attention to what wise men have to say about cosmology and existence.
He has spent his entire life in an effort to complete the task that eluded Einstein, mainly because Einstein couldn't accept quantum weirdness. Kaku not only accepts it, he embraces it and reconciled quantum theory with general relativity, to co-found unified string theory.
To me, coming up with a unified theory of everything qualifies you to answer the important questions, like the one he answered in the video I posted. I thought his answer was brilliant and almost verbatim how Hawking answered the question in his final book.
But yeah, 3 stooges, amiright?

Well, if you can't make friends, make enemies!

That's always an aid to convivial conversation!

I’m all for conjugal conversation.

and the standard for adjudgingthem as very wise is?

that you like their answers?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 09:50PM by dogblogger.

So you "believe that "wise men" are always correct? No matter what they are talking about? You really need to learn critical thinking.

Why do you need to rely on them anyway?

Are you incapable of deciding what you believe on your own?

[|] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you "believe that "wise men" are always
> correct? No matter what they are talking about?
> You really need to learn critical thinking.
>
> Why do you need to rely on them anyway?
>
> Are you incapable of deciding what you believe on
> your own?

I don't believe wise men are always correct.
Obviously Einstein had a personal life I wouldn't want to emulate or live, but in terms of his world view, there's a reason Hawking and Kaku say they believe in the God of Einstein, but one who does play dice with the universe. Obviously Einstein was wrong to dismiss Quantum weirdness, when there turned out to be ways to explain it mathematically. Thank goodness Kaku took up his life's quest and finally found a unified superstring theory.

I just think that explains a lot.

Personally I think God is just a inadequate symbol of a vast, creative mystery that is a mystery to all of us. There are other words that are inadequate symbols of the same thing Einstein, Hawking and Kaku were often asked about, and answered profoundly and wisely, IMO, more wisely than just about anybody else I know of. What's wrong with listening to wise men who were the greatest geniuses that ever lived? I don't worship them. I don't pay them or their estates any money, I just am always interested in articulating a more tenable existential foothold and wise men (and women) who I admire have helped me to articulate myself better. Obviously I have not been all that articulate or so many of you wouldn't just want to do battle with me all the time.

I have my own thoughts, they're just not nearly as cool as this guy's,

http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/kaku.asp

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I have my own thoughts, they're just not nearly as
> cool as this guy's,
>
> http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/kaku.asp


Thucydides

It is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not desire.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wishthnk.html

How much you like or find cool an idea has zero bearing on its accuracy.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> koriwhore Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > I have my own thoughts, they're just not nearly
> as
> > cool as this guy's,
> >
> >
> http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/kaku.asp
>
>
>
> Thucydides
>
> It is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless
> hope what they long for, and to use sovereign
> reason to thrust aside what they do not desire.
>
> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wishthnk.html
>
> How much you like or find cool an idea has zero
> bearing on its accuracy.


Hawking called M Theory our best candidate for a complete unified theory of everything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2019 12:02AM by koriwhore.

which wasnt the argument you articulated.

So Einstein and Kaku proved the existence of god ? How so ?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Einstein and Kaku proved the existence of god ?
> How so ?

Kaku is a String Theorist, who articulated a theory about what he called "a good candidate for what Einstein called, "The Mind of God". Hawking said in his last book, Brief Answers to the Big Questions, How Did it All Begin? that M Theory was the best candidate for a complete field theory, aka, the Mind of God.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU0I65HsM7U

M theory does not e.g. to the mind of God. That's a false equivalency no matter who says it.

dogblogger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> M theory does not e.g. to the mind of God. That's
> a false equivalency no matter who says it.


I believe in Kaku's god, if not your god.

https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/michio-kaku-believes-in-god-if-not-that-god

I think we should discuss Einstein's opinion about hair style. Since he was so smart, we should recognize that the way he did his hair is the correct style.


https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=einstein+hair&qpvt=einstein+hair&FORM=IGRE

If you don't wear your hair like him, you're wrong because he is very smart scientist.

Oh, and we should all have moustaches.

YES! And we can call our leaders Sheperds, Just like in Firefly, the inspired future.

https://youtu.be/qFPbAqOKeV0

And the heretics will proclaim, "Too much hair!"

Hahaha!

Also, Einstein smoked a pipe. Since he was so smart, we should all smoke pipes as well.

>"I agree with Kaku (and Einstein) 100%."

Cherry picking once again. What about all the other smart people who have a different view than yours (even if you accept your interpretation of their out of context statements)? Are they still fools?

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >"I agree with Kaku (and Einstein) 100%."
>
> Cherry picking once again. What about all the
> other smart people who have a different view than
> yours (even if you accept your interpretation of
> their out of context statements)? Are they still
> fools?

"The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres."
Albert Einstein

The fanatical atheist group think on this board and in this thread is a perfect example of what Einstein was talking about.

https://youtu.be/fW6JFKgbAF4

Who said I was only talking about Atheists? I pointed out in my post to you in another thread that there are Christian and Atheists alike that are Nobel Laureates, who do not claim that "God is Nature". You claim that you follow the wisest (who have quotes that conveniently confirm your bias towards "God is Nature") and everyone else are fools.

These "fools" believe in Christian, Muslim, or other faiths, or have stated that they do not believe in God at all. Most do not believe that "Nature" has any divinity. They either believe in the God of their faith, or nothing at all. A small handful have said thing that you've been able to interpret as supporting your beliefs.

You can believe what you want, but your claims are appeals to authority from cherry picked "famous" scientists that confirm your bias. Nothing more.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 11:51AM by Finally Free!.

So Einstein, besides expert at physics, is also an authority on God, and as a corollary, atheists. And you use his bigoted statement against one world view, because you can't cast that as equinanimous, to justify yours.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 11:47AM by dogblogger.

Taylor Swift is a good singer, so she must be an expert on politics.

Science has proven that smart people are more easily fooled than dumb people. They can go through any contortions to justify their ideas. So, I wouldn’t put their opinions above those of a pastor or rabbi of average intelligence.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science has proven that smart people are more
> easily fooled than dumb people. They can go
> through any contortions to justify their ideas.
> So, I wouldn’t put their opinions above those of
> a pastor or rabbi of average intelligence.

This has not been my life experience. I have been extremely fortunate to have lived my life with, and among, an inordinate number of highly intelligent people--and throughout, I have known many [relatively] "dumb" people too.

Overall (one prominent exception I can think of), highly-intelligent people (who are not autistic, or otherwise brain-damaged in some way) are FAR LESS "easily fooled than dumb people."

"Dumb people" often tend to be wrongly reflexive in their immediate judgments....they frequently do not, or are unable to, consider the relevant "also trues" which exist in, or relate to, a given situation....they usually lack critical foundational knowledge....they are often unaware of, or uninterested in, the knowledge and expertise which is actually readily available to them (via Google, the public library, or people they know already, or could reasonably make contact with if they thought about it for a bit)....and [relative to others who are at least somewhat smarter] are less able to process the information available to them in order to come to logically correct (or "more" correct) conclusions. They tend to be relatively unconcerned with consequences, with the potentially undesirable effects of their actions on other people (etc.) in the present, or realization of how, if they do "this" now, "this other [undesirable or negative]" thing will likely occur, often as collateral damage, in the future. They frequently tend to be inappropriately over-sensitive to past training and past experiences, and markedly unrealistic about logical future situations which are appropriate to that person and to their particular life.

Comparatively speaking, and as an entire group, more intelligent people are less easily fooled than lesser intelligent people.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 05:08PM by Tevai.

I'd like to add this: I think that when 'intelligent' people end up getting fooled, it was because they became complicit in the task and made excuses for the ringing bells that would otherwise have warned them.

Sometimes even the smartest people want something so much that they ignore the signs that 'it ain't never really gonna happen.'

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd like to add this: I think that when
> 'intelligent' people end up getting fooled, it was
> because they became complicit in the task and made
> excuses for the ringing bells that would otherwise
> have warned them.
>
> Sometimes even the smartest people want something
> so much that they ignore the signs that 'it ain't
> never really gonna happen.'

I agree.

I agree that Einstein' s views on God are not worth any more than that of any Other person who is familiar with science. Religion and theology were not his areas of expertise. Although his views are ceertainlly.worth more than someone who denies science. However, I think many posters are missing the point. I think Einstein is often cited by posters as a smart person who believed in some sort of higher power although not a personal god. This seems to be in response to the superiority complex that some atheist posters often exhibit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 04:32PM by bona dea.

I wish we didn't have to use the words Superiority Complex, but I can see how each side enjoys hanging that label on the other.

I was perfectly serious when I mentioned that when I die I want to 'wake up' in a big hiring hall, where I will have a bunch of options on what to do next.

I have adopted the title of atheist because I have no desire to be a churchy person; I have no belief in the ghawd of either Testament. I don't believe any human being knows what, if anything, comes next. And I have tentatively concluded that it's dirt naps all the way down. I know nothing certain about those three mormon questions. Why guess when I just have to wait to see?

I'm a big believer in Whatever Gets You Through The Night.

As word problems, discussions about ghawds, the continuation of the self after death, aliens, AI overlords, etc. can be amusing, but Certainty is, to me, offensive when it's sprayed via a fire hose at all concerned.

so there!

Actually, I wasn't referring to you, but there are a few atheists here who seem to think that anyone who believes in God is either ignorant or stupid.I find them insufferable. I haven't had a problem with you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2019 08:56PM by bona dea.

Nor I with you, Ms. Dea!

Just as there are atheists who may believe themselves superior, there are likewise deists with that same malady.

The follow the Chee Caw 'Goh blessing: "The more the mouse knows, the less the cat is sure of."

"Schrödinger wanted to show that this way of thinking about quantum mechanics would lead to absurd situations.He designed a thought experiment.

A cat is placed in a room that is separated from the outside world.

A Geiger counter which counts the amount of radioactive decay and a little bit of a radioactive element are in the room.

Within one hour, one of the atoms of the radioactive material might decay (or break down because the material is not stable), or it may not.

If the material breaks down, it will release an atomic particle, which will hit the geiger counter, which will release poison gas, which will kill the cat.

The question now is: at the end of the hour, is the cat alive or dead? Schrödinger says that according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, as long as the door is closed, the cat is dead and alive. There is no way to know until the door is opened. But by opening the door, the person is interfering with the experiment. The person and the experiment have to be described with reference to each other."


Every time you bring up this subject, you are opening the door. Stop doing that! You're interfering with the experiment!

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Schrödinger wanted to show that this way of
> thinking about quantum mechanics would lead to
> absurd situations.He designed a thought
> experiment.
>
> A cat is placed in a room that is separated from
> the outside world.
>
> A Geiger counter which counts the amount of
> radioactive decay and a little bit of a
> radioactive element are in the room.
>
> Within one hour, one of the atoms of the
> radioactive material might decay (or break down
> because the material is not stable), or it may
> not.
>
> If the material breaks down, it will release an
> atomic particle, which will hit the geiger
> counter, which will release poison gas, which will
> kill the cat.
>
> The question now is: at the end of the hour, is
> the cat alive or dead? Schrödinger says that
> according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, as
> long as the door is closed, the cat is dead and
> alive. There is no way to know until the door is
> opened. But by opening the door, the person is
> interfering with the experiment. The person and
> the experiment have to be described with reference
> to each other."
>
>
> Every time you bring up this subject, you are
> opening the door. Stop doing that! You're
> interfering with the experiment!

haha, awesome