List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
Any belief can be listed, whether religious, scientific, mystical, or just plain superstitious.
Only if the reasoning presented against the belief is clearly logical, can the belief be discarded.
For instance,
"The One-and-Only Almighty Creator of the Universe ordered His people to go forth and find good land and waters, to multiply and to prosper, and to remain separate from all peoples who did not bow their necks to The One-and-Only Almighty Creator of the Universe."
Clearly logical reasoning against this belief might be
"By definition, there is only one Universe, so it includes absolutely every bounded form, and no bounded form can remain outside the Universe. A 'One-and-Only Almighty Creator of the Universe' that can 'order people to do x and y' has a form that is bounded by 'not order people to do x and y'. Since it is logical to include it within the Universe, it cannot be responsible for creating the Universe. Therefore, this is not a logical belief, and can be discarded."
-
Only if the reasoning presented against the belief is clearly logical, can the belief be discarded.
For instance,
"The One-and-Only Almighty Creator of the Universe ordered His people to go forth and find good land and waters, to multiply and to prosper, and to remain separate from all peoples who did not bow their necks to The One-and-Only Almighty Creator of the Universe."
Clearly logical reasoning against this belief might be
"By definition, there is only one Universe, so it includes absolutely every bounded form, and no bounded form can remain outside the Universe. A 'One-and-Only Almighty Creator of the Universe' that can 'order people to do x and y' has a form that is bounded by 'not order people to do x and y'. Since it is logical to include it within the Universe, it cannot be responsible for creating the Universe. Therefore, this is not a logical belief, and can be discarded."
-
Re: List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
That's not absolutely true as stated, but mostly true. I suggest you re-work your example placing more emphasis on clarity. Letting people know exactly which element you are arguing against in each instance may help.Kelly Jones wrote:Only if the reasoning presented against the belief is clearly logical, can the belief be discarded.
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
What don't you understand, Rhett?
Re: List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
I can't think of anything right now.Kelly Jones wrote:What don't you understand, Rhett?
What i do know is that it doesn't engage or persuade me. This is a science topic area but your post seems mostly about religion. Before i've even got past the first few words i disagree with your definition of the universe. After skimming halfway through i can't be bothered any more.
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
Well, as I'm off on a break, you'll have to make do with this reply.
-
I'm not into being charismatic. I'll leave that up to the fake gurus.What i do know is that it doesn't engage or persuade me.
That's where the practice of science begins and ends these days. You only need to look at websites like newscientist.com or read lectures by famous theoretical physicists. The entire attitude to science (defining things) is warped by a religious attitude.This is a science topic area but your post seems mostly about religion.
That's your problem, Rhett.Before i've even got past the first few words i disagree with your definition of the universe. After skimming halfway through i can't be bothered any more.
-
Re: List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
You definitely present yourself as aiming to engage and persuade people. This is fine and well for someone that values truth. Ultimately, i don't think others are your main focus, your main goal is to work on yourself, which is also fine.Kelly Jones wrote:R: What i do know is that it doesn't engage or persuade me.
K: I'm not into being charismatic. I'll leave that up to the fake gurus.
If so then science has deteriorated since i was more involved with it.R: This is a science topic area but your post seems mostly about religion.
K: That's where the practice of science begins and ends these days. You only need to look at websites like newscientist.com or read lectures by famous theoretical physicists. The entire attitude to science (defining things) is warped by a religious attitude.
I don't see it as a problem to me.R: Before i've even got past the first few words i disagree with your definition of the universe. After skimming halfway through i can't be bothered any more.
K: That's your problem, Rhett.
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
Can someone do this one?
"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. " -Bell's Theorem
"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. " -Bell's Theorem
- sue hindmarsh
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
- Location: Sous Le Soleil
Re: List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
I’ll give it a try, but I’ll need a nesting bird, a sledgehammer and a stick of chewing gum – preferably peppermint flavoured. ; )
-
Firstly, those “hidden variables†are obviously not that good at hiding, for we are aware of their existence. And then to wishfully dream that these shy critters have no immediate effect on observable reality is completely ignoring the concept of causality – which once applied, makes Bell's whole idea absurd.
What do you reckon Trevor!
-
-
Firstly, those “hidden variables†are obviously not that good at hiding, for we are aware of their existence. And then to wishfully dream that these shy critters have no immediate effect on observable reality is completely ignoring the concept of causality – which once applied, makes Bell's whole idea absurd.
What do you reckon Trevor!
-
- Trevor Salyzyn
- Posts: 2420
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
Excellent, Sue. Can't have a list of stupid beliefs without that one.
(I was too lazy to do it myself, though...)
(I was too lazy to do it myself, though...)
Re: List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
.
-K-J-
-tomas-
Tis no wonder Bush & Hitler be the Clone.
Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason
:.|
-K-J-
Kelly Jones wrote:Any belief can be listed, whether religious, scientific, mystical, or just plain superstitious.
-High N Mighty-
Only if the reasoning presented against the belief is clearly logical, can the belief be discarded.
-tomas-
Serious Buzz.
-High N Mighty-
For instance,
"The One-and-Only Almighty Creator of the Universe ordered His people to go forth and find good land and waters, to multiply and to prosper, and to remain separate from all peoples who did not bow their necks to The One-and-Only Almighty Creator of the Universe."
-tomas-
Quotations of Chairman Mao?
-High N Mighty-
Clearly logical reasoning against this belief might be: "By definition, there is only one Universe, so it includes absolutely every bounded form, and no bounded form can remain outside the Universe. A 'One-and-Only Almighty Creator of the Universe' that can 'order people to do x and y' has a form that is bounded by 'not order people to do x and y'. Since it is logical to include it within the Universe, it cannot be responsible for creating the Universe. Therefore, this is not a logical belief, and can be discarded." -
-tomas-
Tis no wonder Bush & Hitler be the Clone.
Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason
:.|
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 8:48 pm
Re: List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
There's nothing wrong with Bell's Theorem. It's the belief that quantum mechanics is the ultimate truth (or even just the belief that it could be the ultimate truth, which is impossible on grounds of incoherency) which needs to be discarded. Bell's Theorem just indicates a difficulty for one direction of postquantum theory.Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Can someone do this one?
"No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. " -Bell's Theorem
- David Quinn
- Posts: 5708
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
Good to see you're still alive, Mitchell. What have you been doing of late?
Have you been exploring the possibilities of postquantum theory?
-
Have you been exploring the possibilities of postquantum theory?
-
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 8:48 pm
Re: List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
I think about it, but I think metaphysics matters more. Wrestling with the Hidden Void until it reveals a form, so to speak. That is where fundamental progress might be made. Otherwise, progress in physics just amounts to a change in the details of mathematized materialism.David Quinn wrote:Good to see you're still alive, Mitchell. What have you been doing of late?
Have you been exploring the possibilities of postquantum theory?
I am newly off the dole, with a mix of part-time work involving I.T. and mathematics.
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
Hah! Off the dole? Treason against Reason!
- Kelly Jones
- Posts: 2665
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Re: List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
-
Here is a belief about the Universe, to discard. It's about the belief that the Universe is frightening and that one needs love, and comfort, and woman's helping hand (or bouncing boobs for entertainment).
I've been thinking again about work and livelihoods.
It seems to me that bright, young humans are so exhausted by work and useless information, that they have no room left for deep thinking. So how can The Reasoning Show advertising compete for their interest in this state of affairs?
I think this generalisation is true: What a person does for a living has an enormous impact on their mind. So, unless livelihoods are philosophical, then there is virtually no chance that wisdom will be of interest. One wonders whether creating Thinker jobs would help, with no other aim than to promote true, non-academic philosophy.
The problem is, of course, that the philosophical livelihood does not interest women. It's a problem because men think that other men will think they're failures, if they say that they are philosophers. No flashy car, no wife and children, no socially-approved role, just an invisible freedom.
So, I think creating totally woman-free philosopher apprenticeships is the way to go. No community-grants to drape the apprenticeships with social/woman-acceptability. No disguise. If a female shows up who claims interest in philosophical truths, I'd treat her as a third-world citizen, until she develops into a high calibre student on her own merit, and shows real capacity for philosophical truths.
The more that people push for philosophy to be visible as the noblest kind of knowledge available to humankind, the more the option appears to others, that philosophy is a valuable livelihood.
-
Here is a belief about the Universe, to discard. It's about the belief that the Universe is frightening and that one needs love, and comfort, and woman's helping hand (or bouncing boobs for entertainment).
I've been thinking again about work and livelihoods.
It seems to me that bright, young humans are so exhausted by work and useless information, that they have no room left for deep thinking. So how can The Reasoning Show advertising compete for their interest in this state of affairs?
I think this generalisation is true: What a person does for a living has an enormous impact on their mind. So, unless livelihoods are philosophical, then there is virtually no chance that wisdom will be of interest. One wonders whether creating Thinker jobs would help, with no other aim than to promote true, non-academic philosophy.
The problem is, of course, that the philosophical livelihood does not interest women. It's a problem because men think that other men will think they're failures, if they say that they are philosophers. No flashy car, no wife and children, no socially-approved role, just an invisible freedom.
So, I think creating totally woman-free philosopher apprenticeships is the way to go. No community-grants to drape the apprenticeships with social/woman-acceptability. No disguise. If a female shows up who claims interest in philosophical truths, I'd treat her as a third-world citizen, until she develops into a high calibre student on her own merit, and shows real capacity for philosophical truths.
The more that people push for philosophy to be visible as the noblest kind of knowledge available to humankind, the more the option appears to others, that philosophy is a valuable livelihood.
-
Re: List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
There are plenty of people who work and do philosophy, you're just living in one small part of the globe like a child. Also, you're bent on destroying the human race because you want everyone to stop working and producing children, boy we'll get really far doing that.....Kelly Jones wrote:-
Here is a belief about the Universe, to discard. It's about the belief that the Universe is frightening and that one needs love, and comfort, and woman's helping hand (or bouncing boobs for entertainment).
I've been thinking again about work and livelihoods.
It seems to me that bright, young humans are so exhausted by work and useless information, that they have no room left for deep thinking. So how can The Reasoning Show advertising compete for their interest in this state of affairs?
I think this generalisation is true: What a person does for a living has an enormous impact on their mind. So, unless livelihoods are philosophical, then there is virtually no chance that wisdom will be of interest. One wonders whether creating Thinker jobs would help, with no other aim than to promote true, non-academic philosophy.
The problem is, of course, that the philosophical livelihood does not interest women. It's a problem because men think that other men will think they're failures, if they say that they are philosophers. No flashy car, no wife and children, no socially-approved role, just an invisible freedom.
So, I think creating totally woman-free philosopher apprenticeships is the way to go. No community-grants to drape the apprenticeships with social/woman-acceptability. No disguise. If a female shows up who claims interest in philosophical truths, I'd treat her as a third-world citizen, until she develops into a high calibre student on her own merit, and shows real capacity for philosophical truths.
The more that people push for philosophy to be visible as the noblest kind of knowledge available to humankind, the more the option appears to others, that philosophy is a valuable livelihood.
-
There's a time for thinking, and there's a time for colonizing space.
Amor fati
Re: List of Beliefs about the Universe, to discard
Kelly writes:
Yes, treating people as "third-world citizens" is precisely how we go about assisting them. It's been working so well for so long. Just look at all the high-caliber women this attitude has produced through the millennia. Look at all the intelligence this practice has spawned.
Men, though, I assume - instead, they will be encouraged into your world, femininely encouraged, welcomed, and ego-serviced by this very condition of separatism.
Your vision is insulting to men and women, and incoherent regarding those few causes and effects that we do have knowledge of. But then, your "vision" is exactly the way the world's been working thus far . . . .
Here it is, a perfect example laid right at my feet of the nearly seamless slop between the "feminine" as characteristics and the "feminine" as people.So, I think creating totally woman-free philosopher apprenticeships is the way to go. No community-grants to drape the apprenticeships with social/woman-acceptability. No disguise. If a female shows up who claims interest in philosophical truths, I'd treat her as a third-world citizen, until she develops into a high calibre student on her own merit, and shows real capacity for philosophical truths.
Yes, treating people as "third-world citizens" is precisely how we go about assisting them. It's been working so well for so long. Just look at all the high-caliber women this attitude has produced through the millennia. Look at all the intelligence this practice has spawned.
Men, though, I assume - instead, they will be encouraged into your world, femininely encouraged, welcomed, and ego-serviced by this very condition of separatism.
Your vision is insulting to men and women, and incoherent regarding those few causes and effects that we do have knowledge of. But then, your "vision" is exactly the way the world's been working thus far . . . .