Making peace with femininity

[Dan Rowden]

Ah, I see, Olio at its finest. Amazing.

[Faust]

Case in point. See what I mean, folks?

no we don't see, because what you mean is ridiculous. You're calling for an end of debate to complex issues, there's nothing more idiotic and arrogant and dishonest.

Better to watch grass grow than to wade into that sort of thing.

maybe with global warming because GF isn't necessarily filled with climatologists, but evolution is a bit more easier to argue about, and the data is easier to understand.

And just a handy tip, a stream of insults won't provoke me into having discussions that I find pointless.

they aren't insults, they are accurate observations and insights into the laziness of your character. Nor are they meant to provoke you into discussion, you're not here to discuss, but merely to try and end them.

What's more arrogant than to call for an end of discussion to such issues?

[Unidian]

Mmm-hmm. Insulters always say "it's not insulting, it's just a statement of fact."

Well, in that spirit, you're frankly not very bright and to engage you on any subject would essentially be a waste of time. Also, you write poorly and you are gullible.

[RobertGreenSky]

Ah, I see, Olio at its finest. Amazing.

Interesting that individuals so clearly grasping at status can get away with claiming they're enlightened. Only at Genius Forum. Amazing.

[Faust]

I see no problem with a functionally deterministic "classical" world emerging at the macroscopic level from an acausal quantum substrate.

how can an acausal system create a causal one?

With a nod to Robert's Nagarjuana reference, I think the whole problem arises when when one tries to make either the "classical" aspect or the "quantum" aspect foundational in some concrete ontological sense.

uhh, you said earlier that the quantum realm is the 'foundation' of everything.

[Philosophaster]

I see no problem with a functionally deterministic "classical" world emerging at the macroscopic level from an acausal quantum substrate.

how can an acausal system create a causal one?

How can colorless photons and subatomic particles create the beautiful array of colors we see each day?

[Faust]

Mmm-hmm. Insulters always say "it's not insulting, it's just a statement of fact."

just because it's insulting doesn't mean it's untrue. Infact, usually when something is insulting is because it is true.

Well, in that spirit, you're frankly not very bright and to engage you on any subject would essentially be a waste of time.

in what spirit? Showing the flaws of your character? oh ok. I'm not bright? How? By trying to stifle debates about important issues? Oh ok...

Also, you write poorly and you are gullible.

"writing poorly" is subjective, dumbass. Gullible? haha, by not adhereing to your rubbish of "end of discussion" in important matters?

[Unidian]

How can atoms bouncing around in space create Beethoven's fifth?

[Dan Rowden]

Ah, I see, Olio at its finest. Amazing.

Interesting that individuals so clearly grasping at status can get away with claiming they're enlightened. Only at Genius Forum. Amazing.

You think people thereby experience "status" because that's the only way you can interpret things. Those are your filters, Robert; take ownership of them for once.

[Faust]

How can colorless photons and subatomic particles create the beautiful array of colors we see each day?

how do you know their colourless?

Maybe they do something else, and create colour with other things combined. But that's not the same as an uncaused system, creating a caused system, that would require causality!

How can atoms bouncing around in space create Beethoven's fifth?

because they're caused, and Beethoven can only make such a thing because music is caused, and emotions are caused. If music was uncaused it wouldn't be music anymore.

[Unidian]

"writing poorly" is subjective, dumbass.

Not entirely. There are conventions of grammar, spelling, sentence structure, usage, and other criteria. You fail at pretty much all of them.

But yeah, it's still possible there would be someone out there who would find your writing top-notch. Some people will go for anything. "Modern art" proves that.

[Unidian]

because they're caused, and Beethoven can only make such a thing because music is caused, and emotions are caused. If music was uncaused it wouldn't be music anymore.

Of course Beethoven's creativity was caused. Specifically, it was caused by the motion of uncaused subatomic particles bouncing around in space.

[Philosophaster]

Anyway, random things can easily have a predictable result. Generate a random number between 1 and 100. Do that a thousand times. Then average all the random numbers together. The result will be 50, or something quite close. :-)

[Faust]

"writing poorly" is subjective, dumbass.

Not entirely. There are conventions of grammar, spelling, sentence structure, usage, and other criteria. You fail at pretty much all of them.

I fail at spelling?

Why don't you show me how I fail?

But yeah, it's still possible there would be someone out there who would find your writing top-notch. Some people will go for anything. "Modern art" proves that.

lame

[Unidian]

Go into a forum in which people think of themselves as "geniuses" and refer to basic scientific facts (such as evolution or what color is) 100 times. Average the number of times such facts are ignored, disputed, or misunderstood. The result will be 99, or something quite close.

[Faust]

because they're caused, and Beethoven can only make such a thing because music is caused, and emotions are caused. If music was uncaused it wouldn't be music anymore.

Of course Beethoven's creativity was caused. Specifically, it was caused by the motion of uncaused subatomic particles bouncing around in space.

'bouncing around' requires causality. If particles are bouncing around and interacting with the environment they're caused

[Faust]

Anyway, random things can easily have a predictable result. Generate a random number between 1 and 100. Do that a thousand times. Then average all the random numbers together. The result will be 50, or something quite close. :-)

this doesn't refute causality

[Unidian]

I fail at spelling?

Why don't you show me how I fail?

You're right, I retract the claim. Your spelling is good enough. Thanks for acknowledging (by exclusion) that you do fail at grammar, sentence structure, usage, and other criteria.

But seriously, enough of this, don't you think? We've both expressed our low opinion of the other. Let's move on.

[Philosophaster]

Anyway, random things can easily have a predictable result. Generate a random number between 1 and 100. Do that a thousand times. Then average all the random numbers together. The result will be 50, or something quite close. :-)

this doesn't refute causality

No, but it does refute the idea that acausality could never result in a world that has many predictable elements. :-)

[Unidian]

'bouncing around' requires causality. If particles are bouncing around and interacting with the environment they're caused

That would only establish that such particles are the source of causal relationships. It says nothing about the source or origin of the particles themselves.

[Dave Toast]

Why?

I see no problem with a functionally deterministic "classical" world emerging at the macroscopic level from an acausal quantum substrate.

That's not really what I wanted to discuss as it can only ever be a matter of opinion, as previously stated.

However, while we're venturing opinions, I cannot even begin to conceive what acausality is, never mind how it would produce predictable results via non-deterministic processes. So my opinion has to go with the obvious paradigm, operative throughout the rest of physical and mental reality, causality. But I can never prove that there isn't some kind of acausality that does do this at the quantum level somehow, and neither could anyone else.

With a nod to Robert's Nagarjuana reference, I think the whole problem arises when when one tries to make either the "classical" aspect or the "quantum" aspect foundational in some concrete ontological sense.

Tbh, I wanted to discuss the science of the matter, not the philosophy. In that vein, I think this is a false dilemma, being as there is no proof of acausality at the quantum level.

With regards to Robert's reference and commentary, I wanted a discussion about the conventional, that's all. Nothing to do with absolutes, just the science and its interpretation. I can't imagine why anyone would think otherwise, going off what I've said.

[RobertGreenSky]

Ah, I see, Olio at its finest. Amazing.

Interesting that individuals so clearly grasping at status can get away with claiming they're enlightened. Only at Genius Forum. Amazing.

You think people thereby experience "status" because that's the only way you can interpret things. Those are your filters, Robert; take ownership of them for once.

And you aren't concerned about status because you're above it all? If you want to play 'Big Dan Rowden is enlightened' you've sure got your chance with Nagarjuna on causality, a far easier way for you to prove the matter than the mere posturing that you're beyond it all.

Do you tell your friends at the pub you're enlightened? 'Why sure you are there, Danny, sure you are. Barkeep! Another pint for Danny!'

[brokenhead]

Go into a forum in which people think of themselves as "geniuses" and refer to basic scientific facts (such as evolution or what color is) 100 times. Average the number of times such facts are ignored, disputed, or misunderstood. The result will be 99, or something quite close.

I got a 97.879.

[Philosophaster]

According to Dr. Gene Ray's research, this discussion is educated stupid and evil.

[Unidian]

According to Dr. Gene Ray's research, this discussion is educated stupid and evil.

Then, for the first time ever, Dr. Gene Ray is wrong. One could certainly call this discussion "stupid and evil" if they were so inclined, but to call it "educated" given some of the proclamations made within it would be a grave error.

But regardless, the fact remains that quantum mechanical acausality is bastardly queer and dooms Nature and future youth to a 1-corner Unenlightened hell.