Making peace with femininity

[Faust]

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.

what's the point of this?

If evolution were true, you would be easily able to prove me wrong on the speciation issue. I've talked to a biology evolutionist T.A. at my university, and he was just as dumb and arrogant and unwilling to accept the fallacies. It would make sense the professor would be just the same. And it makes sense and it has happnened, that someone as foolish and arrogant as Dawkins would be the same too.

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

how? Your example wasn't "acausal" at all. The numbers that I would chose wouldn't be "random" in that I would be caused to pick those specific numbers.

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.

actually no I didn't acknowledge, that's what "Why don't you show me how I fail?" was about..

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

it was you who childishly made false and low accusations of me. They were totally irrelevant to the conversation, unless the whole purpose of them was to stop the discussion, which could be called 'relevant.' My remarks were insulting to you because they were true. Now that that's over, why don't you try and simply prove speciation?

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.

when the particles come into existence, they're interacting with the environment in order to do so. As they come into existence, they take up space and other things, this is partly the source of their origin. Peculiar that you've ignored Quinn's research into this matter with scientists.

[Unidian]

According to L. Hon Rubbard's* research, we all got blowed up in a volcano 75 million years ago by Lord Xenu. Ka-blooey! "Rubbard" almost died discovering this, so it would be improper to make light of it. Oh, and radiation sickness can be cured with vitamins. And so can drug addiction.

And the Christian God Yahweh "lives in a trunk with a leopard skin." This is clearly weighty "research" indeed.

*"L. Hon Rubbard" intentionally misspelled due to thetans.

[Faust]

According to L. Hon Rubbard's* research, we all got blowed up in a volcano 75 million years ago by Lord Xenu. Ka-blooey! "Rubbard" almost died discovering this, so it would be improper to make light of it. Oh, and radiation sickness can be cured with vitamins. And so can drug addiction.

And the Christian God Yahweh "lives in a trunk with a leopard skin." This is clearly weighty "research" indeed.

except the above is simply fiction stories, not investigation and discussion of observations with relevant people.

I'll reply to this thread when I've done homework and other necessities

[Unidian]

If evolution were true, you would be easily able to prove me wrong on the speciation issue. I've talked to a biology evolutionist T.A. at my university, and he was just as dumb and arrogant and unwilling to accept the fallacies. It would make sense the professor would be just the same. And it makes sense and it has happnened, that someone as foolish and arrogant as Dawkins would be the same too.

Yes yes, professors and scientists and Richard Dawkins are educated stupid and unable to comprehend Nature's Harmonic Simultaneous 4-Day Anti-Evolution Cube. Yep, that must be it.

My remarks were insulting to you because they were true.

No, oh ye of little neocortex, they were insulting because they were insults. The insulting nature of a remark is not dependent on its veracity, as the dictionary will readily demonstrate you if you care to crack it open.

I don't mind, though. Are you not having fun here?

when the particles come into existence, they're interacting with the environment in order to do so. As they come into existence, they take up space and other things, this is partly the source of their origin. Peculiar that you've ignored Quinn's research into this matter with scientists.

Yeah, I know the Quinnological position on this. I read "Wisdom of the Infinite" and debated all this with Quinn himself years ago. Quinn's definition of "causality" is not the same as everyone else's. His is a highly convoluted conflation of the Buddhist doctrine of "dependent origination" with the mainstream physical and philosophical view of causal relationships.

Why do you insist I rehash all of this when the original thread is here?

[Philosophaster]

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

how? Your example wasn't "acausal" at all. The numbers that I would chose wouldn't be "random" in that I would be caused to pick those specific numbers.

Oh, I said that you should "generate" the numbers -- I meant that you should use a mathematically random process, not simply choose them according to your own whim. But even using a mathematically random process, the average would still end up as a predictable result: about 50. A random process generating a predictable result.

[Unidian]

According to Tourette's Guy's research, a porcupine's balls are small, and they don't give a SHIT.

[Philosophaster]

But even using a mathematically random process, the average would still end up as a predictable result: about 50. A random process generating a predictable result.

"But wait!", you might protest, "The constraints on the number-generation, '1-100,' are not random."

Very well then: generate two random numbers, and then generate a thousand numbers between them. The average of the result will still be "(LowerNumber + HigherNumber) / 2." :-)

[Dan Rowden]

Faust,

Perhaps you could list say, 5, succinct reasons why the following statement can't be considered sound:

"Evolution is a demonstrable fact and only the specific mechanics of its processes are still up for debate".

I personally can't think of 1.

[RobertGreenSky]

According to Tourette's Guy's research, a porcupine's balls are small, and they don't give a SHIT.

No, no.

They don't GIVE a shit.

[Unidian]

Robert, don't you dare undermine TG's research by shifting the emphasis like that! I am going to call for your censure and excommunication over this heresy! I am going to...

Ah well, you get the idea. In all seriousness, I think we might should stop all of this for a while as Dan has just locked down an entire forum and probably isn't in the most patient of moods.

[Dave Toast]

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. :-)

You'd have to do it a damned sight more than a thousand times to get close to fifty with any regularity.

And it doesn't refute that at all. Random results of measurables within a probability distribution are not acausal for starters (so in your example, the results are caused to be within 1-100, for example). And of course you are going to be able to predict statistical results for iterations of measurables according to said probability distribution. This is where the whole problem lies with the interpretation of acausality from quantum randomness.

[RobertGreenSky]

Why do you insist I rehash all of this when the original thread is here?

I remember that thread! It's where the old debate was being hashed out. Nagarjuna was one of the issues in the thing, with Quinn clearly shown not to be in agreement with Nagarjuna as Quinn had claimed, but instead with one of Nagarjuna's contemporary opponents. The opponents' (ancient) arguments are still common reactions to Nagarjuna. I trust that by now Quinn has gotten the proper understanding.

[Philosophaster]

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

...And it doesn't refute that at all. Random results of measurables within a probability distribution are not acausal for starters (so in your example, the results are caused to be within 1-100, for example).

It is "acausal" in the sense that you cannot point to some result in the random set and then point to a corresponding factor that caused that result to be 60 rather than 61. That is typically what people mean by "acausality," that there is no apparent cause that you can correlate to a given result, no reason you can give that things ended up one given way rather than another. Sure, the constraints "caused" it to fall between 1 and 100, but that completely misses the point that the specific result, the fact that it was 60 rather than 61, has no causal explanation.

[Dave Toast]

As you say, that is what people typically mean by 'acausality', but clearly it's not acausal and we have just set it up so that we're not privvy to the specific cause of the specific result, which had very specific causes.

Likewise, we are not privvy to the specific causes of measurables in the quantum realm, not because we set it up that way somehow by the nature of measurement but because there is a fundamental limit to the questions we can physically ask of empirical reality. So the acausality of the gaps steps in.

[Unidian]

But in that case, Dave, wouldn't asserting "causality" of the quantum mechanical be a kind of meaningless proclamation, since "causal/acausal" in the ultimate sense is not a question we can ask of empirical reality? Wouldn't it simply be an ontological claim which really says nothing at all in terms of knowledge?

[Dan Rowden]

Exactly, Dave. "Acausality" in a temporal, empirical sense has always and must always have application - it's inevitable because there's always a limit to what is observable and explicable; that limit may be contingent, it may be final, we'll never be truly sure about that. But this application of the concept of "acausality" is, of course, restricted to empirical considerations because the definition of "cause" being employed is limited to empirical relevance and context.

[Dave Toast]

But in that case, Dave, wouldn't asserting "causality" of the quantum mechanical be a kind of meaningless proclamation, since "causal/acausal" in the ultimate sense is not a question we can ask of empirical reality? Wouldn't it simply be an ontological claim which really says nothing at all in terms of knowledge?

Pretty sure I've said that a number of times.

[Dave Toast]

Exactly, Dave. "Acausality" in a temporal, empirical sense has always and must always have application - it's inevitable because there's always a limit to what is observable and explicable; that limit may be contingent, it may be final, we'll never be truly sure about that. But this application of the concept of "acausality" is, of course, restricted to empirical considerations because the definition of "cause" being employed is limited to empirical relevance and context.

The inconsequentiality of definitions eh Dan.

In this case it is a final limit btw, that much we do know. But I guess you were refering to the contextual limits of any given current theory.

[Unidian]

Okay. Apparently I was having trouble seeing what you were actually saying, Dave, and for that I apologize. It's not my impression that you are among those who are talking out of their ass on this, for the record. You seem to know your stuff, and I guess it might have been my insistence that "there isn't a debate" that might have precipitated some of the miscommunication. There is a debate of the nature you're suggesting, but not of the nature someone like Faust is.

[Dave Toast]

But in that case, Dave, wouldn't asserting "causality" of the quantum mechanical be a kind of meaningless proclamation, since "causal/acausal" in the ultimate sense is not a question we can ask of empirical reality? Wouldn't it simply be an ontological claim which really says nothing at all in terms of knowledge?

Pretty sure I've said that a number of times.

Additionally, it would of course depend on what you mean by knowledge. Note that I said there is a fundamental limit to the questions we can physically ask. But it can never be an empirical fact, if that's what you mean by knowledge.

[Unidian]

And now a further question for you, Dave. When Quinn asserts Causality as an "absolute truth," do you think he is saying anything useful?

[Dave Toast]

Look man, we're supposed to be discussing supposed acausality at the quantum level. You asserted that this is the case. I've argued that it's not. And now you seem to have totally accepted what I've said, despite reams of past disagreement, to the end of getting me to cast aspersions at someone else's philosophy.

I mean, wtf?

[Unidian]

Are you going to answer the question or not?

[Dan Rowden]

Exactly, Dave. "Acausality" in a temporal, empirical sense has always and must always have application - it's inevitable because there's always a limit to what is observable and explicable; that limit may be contingent, it may be final, we'll never be truly sure about that. But this application of the concept of "acausality" is, of course, restricted to empirical considerations because the definition of "cause" being employed is limited to empirical relevance and context.

The inconsequentiality of definitions eh Dan.

In this case it is a final limit btw, that much we do know. But I guess you were refering to the contextual limits of any given current theory.

On what basis do you say we know it's final? I'm not sure I'm convinced of that.

[Dave Toast]

Are you going to answer the question or not?

Lol.