Comments by Bonzai

451. President Obama: Bad News For the New Atheists and Other Fundamentalists

Comment #279558 by Bonzai on November 6, 2008 at 7:03 am

Quantum flux

Obama is the worst kind of Christian.... he is a Christian Socialist

Jesus was a Christian socialist. He said " thou shalt spread the wealth!"

Comment #279555 by Bonzai on November 6, 2008 at 6:58 am

The Muslim Brotherhood said they considered Obama's election an "apology" from America. Iran issued similar statements.

9 out of 10 terrorists encourage you to vote Obama.

Are you saying Americans should pick their presidents based on the opinions of the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran?

453. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279548 by Bonzai on November 6, 2008 at 6:53 am

Mitchell,

Probably no avatar until after X'mas. I will PM you about it at some point when I get around to :)

454. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279540 by Bonzai on November 6, 2008 at 6:50 am

Zero

I didn't make the "dicotomy error". I have explained it to Al, do you need a tutorial in logic 101 too?

I haven't read your posts on the other thread carefully, my mistake.

455. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279512 by Bonzai on November 6, 2008 at 6:27 am

Al,

Don't try to change the topic. You accused Obama of not knowing the Russians can veto, that is to say a man who taught at Havard Law school and has been a senator for a few years doesn't have the basic knowledge of a high school grad.

Whether you think the UN is a useful organization or whether Obama is the best candidate for President has nothing to do with it.

Nice try.

456. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279501 by Bonzai on November 6, 2008 at 6:17 am

You are guilty of the usual crime, you are not a deep thinker enough to realize that my criticisms of Obama ARE NOT endorsements of McCain. I know in a simple world that might seem correct, but I was not being disengenuous, Obama didn't have a clue. The fact that McCain didn't either strengthened my original statement that I am glad it was Obama instead of McCain. McCain would have been a disaster.

So both Obama and McCain don't have a clue but you do. What is the chance of that?

But the elation over Obama is foolhardy, he isn't the Messiah, he is an inexperienced one term senator. When the Iraq War started he was in the Illinois state legislature.

With Obama you can say that he lacks experience, which may persuade some people, but how about McCain?

To recap, you specifically accuse obama of not knowing the Russians can veto. That is a ludicrous charge and it has nothing to do with him not being the messiah or his supposed inexperience.

You jump to conclusion based on scant evidence, as usual. It reveals that you are a lazy thinker. And while exposed, you try to attack me. How predictable of you.

May I suggest that people simply ignore your posts as you are clearly unable to make simple intellectual distinctions. I NEVER endorsed McCain or any of his policies, period.

That is not the point. I have never said you endorse McCain. So let me spell out the logic for you very slowly

If Obama didn't know the Russians can veto because he suggested a UN condemnation, then it would follow that McCain didn't either. That is simply not true, as he explained in the quote. You may still disagree, but that is not because he doesn't know the Russians can veto. It shows that your reasoning is flawed.

457. Fred Phelps's son is an atheist: Running from hell

Comment #279272 by Bonzai on November 5, 2008 at 7:48 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcrBF8R5t2w&feature=related

At least he's an equal opportunity hater. :)

458. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279151 by Bonzai on November 5, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Obama didn't know Russia was on the UN Security Council. You might want to know that before you attempt to get the Security Council to rule against Russia. Maybe. Bush too.

Do you really believe that Obama was that clueless?

Why do you think the Republicans didn't try to squeeze more out of it? Oh, wait, John McCain agreed with Obama!

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Monday called on the United Nations Security Council to condemn Russia’s aggression against Georgia.
“We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion,” McCain said in Erie, Pa.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/mccain-calls-for-u.n.-resolution-against-russia-2008-08-11.html

Judging from some of your posts on these boards I strongly recommend others to double check your "facts". While I won't accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, you are not necessarily very thorough with your research.

459. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279142 by Bonzai on November 5, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Mordacious 1

Perhaps a Phd in History would be a good degree for a president.

Don't know about Presidents, but Michael Ignatieff may very well become our prime minister.

460. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #279000 by Bonzai on November 5, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Al and Anna

Guess honey moon is over? :)

461. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278992 by Bonzai on November 5, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Hey Mr. Assumptions, I was talking about Bush, not Obama. So I accept your apology for completely being wrong and not actually reading my posts

Ok, my apologies. You're right I haven't read your posts on the previous page. Now I did, I still think you're out to lunch, but for different reasons.

462. Stoning victim 'begged for mercy'

Comment #278980 by Bonzai on November 5, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Iran allows sex changes

Not "allows", but "forces". In Iran sex change is mandatory for homosexuals as a "treatment", those who refuse would be killed. It is bizarre. Thus, I heard that Iran actually has the second highest number of transexuals (per capita) in the world only after Thailand.

463. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278946 by Bonzai on November 5, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Zero

Assuming what you say is true, record number of people also showed up to vote for McCain/Palin.

Did they turn up to vote for McCain or to vote against Obama?

Granted that many people might have voted for Obama because of "lesser of evils", but that cannot be all. He has a powerful, positive message that resonates with the people by all accounts.

McCain, on the other hand, didn't have much of a coherent message except across the board cuts and tax break for the rich. The bulk of the campaign was insinuations and fear mongering about Obama. There isn't a lot of positive reasons one can vote McCain for because he hasn't given many.

464. Stoning victim 'begged for mercy'

Comment #278940 by Bonzai on November 5, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Al

You're probably right that most Muslims would not declare that they reject Sharia. But am I right in saying that Sharia means different things for Muslims and many do reject stonning and ampution?

A Muslim in a forum said that Sharia is only required in an Islamic state, for Muslims who choose to settle in non Muslim countries, they should obey the law of the land according to Mohammad, they have no right to demand Sharia of any form in the West. Is there truth to that?

465. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278927 by Bonzai on November 5, 2008 at 12:20 pm

Obama is CLEARLY the lesser of two evils.

I don't know, but I have an impression that people were not turning up in historical numbers just to vote the lesser of the evils last night. There was an energy and ethusiasm unseen in the 2000 and 2004. There was a genuine engagement in the political process.

If anything Obama was able to restore the passion in Americans, that dreams are still possible in a cynical world, that governments can still be a positive force in civic life, that nation buildings is not just about good management, grand visions can still inspire.

There was something transformative last night.

While Obama himself may not be as progressive on many issues as we like (I am talking as a leftist), but his election represents a change of mood. He owes his election to grassroot mobilization, the tireless campaign of many people whose voices are normally not heard. Obama has opened a door that cannot be closed again, he started a process that cannot be easily reversed. I am sure these people would hold him accountable. I am sure they would make sure their voices will continue to be heard during his presidency.

In all honesty, McCain might not have been that bad as a President if it weren't for his opportunistic pandering to the far right in order to rally the base.

But even if the McCain camp has not mounted one of the most negative campaign in recent history, even if he hasn't picked Palin as his running mate, still I would have voted for Obama in a heart beat if I were an American. A McCain presidency, even in the best circumstances, represents a retrenchment of old interests and the status quo. Obama's personal politics may be just as pro establishment, but he has awaken something in the American people, they will demand their voices to be heard. That is an important difference.

Try not to be cynical for at least a few days, you deserve a break. :)

466. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278909 by Bonzai on November 5, 2008 at 11:48 am

Like I said, many presidents were seen as horrible during their presidency but then history showed them to be good. The opposite has also happened with presidents people thought were great but history has a different story.

Are you wishing Obama to fail? Have some class for crying out loud. For all the negative campaign and smears (and Sarah Palin) McCain's concession speech was classy and gracious. Were you one of those guys who booed when he praised Obama?

467. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278906 by Bonzai on November 5, 2008 at 11:43 am

Does anyone know what was the percentage of eligible voters who turned up to vote? I am not sure about the numbers but my impression is that the turn out rate last night was the highest in decades.

468. All worldviews are merely paradigms, narratives having no more inherent value than any other narrative.

Comment #278796 by Bonzai on November 5, 2008 at 8:13 am

All worldviews are merely paradigms, narratives having no more inherent value than any other narrative. (Postmodernist nonsense)

Use the comment space below to present your rebuttal.

I knew it. This would be on the exam!

469. Dole Ad Fabricates Audio Of Opponent Yelling 'There Is No God'

Comment #278414 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 6:29 pm

Bob Dole ended up selling Viagara, what is going to happen to Liz?

470. Beware - creationism's march will go on

Comment #278399 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 6:00 pm

DP, polestar and kmita

Yet another attempt to blame the low income folks for the problems brought on by the greed of the rich. When will those who benefit most from the system learn to take responsibility when things go bad?

From Business week:

"Community Reinvestment Act has noting to do with subprime crisis"

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley

Read the whole thing here

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

471. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278391 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 5:43 pm

QF

Maybe you should have registered with this guy to cast multiple votes. Too bad he is arrested.

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/10/21/on-republican-voter-registration-fraud/

472. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278387 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 5:37 pm

QF,

I figured. You're just a figment of the imagination like Mickey Mouse.

Get over it, the ACORN thing is a Republican PR scam.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/oct/13/election-acorn-voter-fraud

473. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278378 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 5:29 pm

QF is probably on drugs and only dreams that he has voted. Good for him.

474. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278072 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 11:41 am

For the love of god man what is your EVIDENCE for that.

You can dig throw the news and the youtube. There are feature stories as well. Like I asked, do you live in a bubble?

475. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278069 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 11:37 am

Ian

Can you not even comprehend that a significant number of people do not like Obama and will not vote for him not because of his skin tone

But how does a significant number don't vote for Obama for non racial reasons contradicts the statement that a significant number of people will not vote for him because they do care about his colour?

Look at a few Palin rally and that doesn't seem far fetched. Do you live in a bubble?

476. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278063 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 11:33 am

Well I quite agree, but the terms of the discussion are dictated to me by those who will not let the sins of the past go.

It is not "of the past" from the impression I get out of the red states. Many will mobilize for McCain because Obama is black.

I have been wondering why didn't McCain pick Condi Rice as his running mate, she is a woman, religious, experienced and way smarter than Sarah Palin. It should be a perfect choice if he wants to undercut Obama's "historical" appeal. Oh and rice is black too. A speculation on my part, but I suspect Rice wouldn't go down well with "the base", for reasons other than her Bush connection.

477. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278057 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 11:27 am

Is there a significance that Obama is black? It seems there is according to many McCain supporters.

So the U.S. is not a colour blind country. That's what make Obama's blackness significant. It would be "insane" to make a point out of it unless the white folks in a significant number of states would let go of their hang ups.

Steve

the fact that an Obama victory would indeed have implications for race relations in the USA (so was an issue), but that was no reason to vote for him. The last thing the USA needs is a president voted in because of tokenism.

I agree with that.

478. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #278051 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 11:21 am

Kamita

As far as candidates go, I left it blank. I'm not very happy with my choices, suffice it to say. I'm not going to play a "lesser of two evils" game this time around. I'm just not going to do it

Way to go. No vote no say and you deserve what you get. Spoilt ballots and blank ballots are not "protests", they just don't count.

Why don't you start your own party if you don't like what you're being offered?

479. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #278041 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 11:11 am

Steve

That has been a very worrying tendency on the left. Some people feel it is better to stick fully to their principles rather than compromise even if it means the opposition gets in. I think that is self-indulgent.

Yeah tell me about it. I used to hang out with such people and it was very frustrating to reason with them. There is a certain martyr mentality and fatalism among them. At some level they are resigned to the fact that they would never make a real impact in the world, so they just sit on the sideline and criticise, ostensibly hedging their bets on some utopia that would never come about,--we won't even get a crude approximation if we consistently choose the strategy of trying to get everything right in one shot. What they get out of it, is some kind of self satisfying smugness and the right to say "I told you so". They seem to really get a kick out of masochism. They are the secular version of the Puritans.

At least Michael Moore is a pragmatist. In a long interview with Amy Goodman on "democracy now"(you can find it online) he candidly acknowledged that Obama is far from ideal and pointed out where he falls short,--for example his health care plan is still managed by private for profit insurance companies, it is not a single payer system. But Moore still endorses him because he is best choice realistically possible. He also argued that once in office, Obama would be much more likely than McCain to support more radical initiaves for reform that go beyond his own plan, like a Democratic bill for a single payer system in the senate.

480. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #277995 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 10:27 am

Hungarian

Bonzai - And is "quite a bit" good enough, in your opinion? On an important and contentious issue, from a man who would be President?

In politics you look for the optimal solution, not the perfect solution. For now, as far as the election goes, the optimal solution is Obama. If you opt for all or nothing, the overwhelming chances are you'll get nothing.

The radical Alexander Cockburn wrote a piece a few days ago saying that he couldn't find any reason for left leaning people to vote Obama and suggested that maybe they should vote independent. I would say that is a sure recipe to shoot yourself on the foot if you have any leftish tendency, even only slightly.

I am suspicious of people, who, at a moment where crucial decisions have to be made, tell people that you shouldn't choose strategy A because it doesn't get you all the way to the where you want to go, while neglecting to tell you that the only alternative is strategy B, which will set you back by quite a bit. In effect, these "idealists" who don't live in the real world only have the effect of allowing the most reactionary political force to stay in power.

481. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #277980 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 10:17 am

Voting day should be a Holiday is the U.S. It is ridiculous that people have to wait for hours to vote, it is a sure way to discourage many working people from voting.

It took me only 5 minutes to vote in the Canadian federal election. Our elections are done in paper ballots. No fancy computers that you may end up voting for the wrong candidate if you touch the screen at the wrong spot or touch it twice because you thought the first touch didn't register. Paper ballots and efficient, cheap and reliable, they are counted and tallied soon after the poll closed.

482. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #277968 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 10:04 am

Hungarian

You're probably right, but he doesn't actually have to support it, does he? All we need to know is what his policies are. Specifically, will he propose / support a constitutional amendment to (a) compel the states to recognise gay marriage, or (b) prohibit the states from recognising gay marriage. He could perfectly legitimately say "Neither, it's a matter for the individual states" (hasn't McCain done this?) Instead, his position appears to vary according to who he is talking to.

We do know quite a bit about Obama's position on gay rights. Other than recognizing same sex marriage he is miles ahead of McCain.

He opposes (b)

He supports repealing "don't ask don't tell", believeing that gays should have the right to opening join the military.

He sponsored an anti-discrimination bill in his home state that includes sexual orientation.

He believes that gay should have the right to adopt children.

483. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #277932 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 9:21 am

There are single issue, gender obsessed 'feminists' who cannot see the bigger picture but are ready to take offence even if none is intended.

Obama's recent ad features a winking Palin suggesting she is an air head trying to charm her way to office. Some of these "feminists" denounce the ad as "sexist". (see link below) They apparently forget that was exactly how Palin market herself and that was exactly why McCain picked her.

If anyone is guilty of insulting the intelligence of female voters and trying to exploit Palin's look that would be McCain and his advisor who choose Palin.

Why didn't McCain choose Condi Rice as his running mate? Perhaps because she is black and wouldn't appeal to "the base"?

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_mccain_obama/2008/10/31/146399.html

Maybe garp is one of these people?

484. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #277914 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 9:04 am

garp is a post modernist?

485. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #277909 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 9:01 am

Jesus holy shit.

I was talking to an American friend, the moron said he was going to vote Obama but then he kept saying he'll party his heart out Thursday. Turns out he thought election is Nov5! Good that I called him last night.

486. People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #277708 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 4:24 am

Brian

And that's why you need a bit of philosophy

No, you don't. I am outa here. I am allergic to that unmentionable word, along with peak oil. :)

487. People who've experienced God KNOW that God exists

Comment #277703 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 4:02 am

ch@nce

There is only one destination in spirituality vs. science right now...and that's stalemate

There is no stalemate if religion tries to make fatcual claims about the world.

By telling someone that their personal experiences (whatever it may be) mean nothing is fairly arrogant, as you cannot prove what they experienced was false, or at least, not what they took it as (no matter how ridiculous it may sound).

I agree that religion has profound private meanings to some people, but so does art, music and poetry. Those other fields don't make factual claims.

I agree that we cannot deny people's experience. They are the ones who experience it, however, we certainly can disagree with their *interpretations* of their experience.

Dostoevsky was an epileptic, he interpreted his seizures as some kind of divine encounters. We cannot deny that his epileptic episodes had special meanings to him,--he had a right to his experience. However, from a third person, objective perspective, it is completely correct to say that he suffered from a neurological disorder, even though it was a transformative experience for him and had inspired some of the most powerful modern fictions. There is nothing arrogant or dismissive in saying that.

EDITED: Finally, private experience is "private" only if it stays private. If a person makes claims in domains of public discourse such as natural history and morality based on his private experience, he can no longer expect "respect. When you try to force your belief on others, those experience that forms the foundation your belief ceases to be "private"

488. Beware - creationism's march will go on

Comment #277651 by Bonzai on November 4, 2008 at 2:29 am

Jesus Mitchell, when did that cute anime girl in your avatar grow a beard?! Not cool anymore. :)

489. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #277121 by Bonzai on November 3, 2008 at 5:26 am

My interpretation is that Bonzai is somewhat jealous of MPhil.

That is rich. No. I am jealous of Steve, but never MPhil. As for someone who is young and really smart, Mitchell impresses me more than anyone else.

490. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #277115 by Bonzai on November 3, 2008 at 5:17 am

Sorry steve. He is condescending, though in a non personal kind of way. He knows a lot of muti-syllable big words, I will give him that.

491. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #277092 by Bonzai on November 3, 2008 at 4:50 am

Mphil

Your last post is just more hot air. Your usual fans here call it "erudite" but it is just unnecessary verbosity, semantics and pedantic nitpicking of words (what else do Philosophers do?)

All that my theory relies upon is that we have no reason to assume infinite subdivision of "things" into other things. That is to say my theory works perfectly with all of empirical science - as long as our theories of fundamental physics do not suppose that there is infinite subdivision.

It is the old carnard of "reductionism" again. So are you an "occurrence" or an "entity"?

In your previous post you clearly tried to argue that there is a fundamental distinction between "things" and "structure and patterns". That is not the same question of whether things can be subdivided or not. They are somewhat related, but not the same question. A ripple on a pond is a "structure" or "pattern", but it is not a "thing" "made of" water molecules. It is carried by the water, but not "made of" it. Thre is a subtle difference here.

I argued that you made your distinction based on old philosophical categories, which appear to be breaking down at the fundamental level. You have not refuted my point as far as I can see, but I will read again later when I have the time

I argue that Hurricanes are not things-proper but structures because we can describe any Hurricane completely by describing completely the behaviour of its parts. It's the divisibility into distinguishable parts that counts for my argument.

There is no such thing as a "complete description". There are only proper or improper, useful and useless descriptions depending on the questions you want to ask.

We all know what hurrianes are "made of", but to say that you can *describe* a hurriane completely by describing its parts reflects a naivity that is even beyond what you posted before, and this has nothing to do with anything even as esoteric and quantum mechanics.

It makes about as much sense as saying you can completely describe Darwinian evolution and ecology by studying quarks. Sure, everything is made of quarks but knowing what the quarks do is not a "complete description" of your dog.

"Descriptions" reside in a higher level of "structures and patterns" and that don't reduce even in principlebecause certain questions can only be asked at a higher level.

The statement that a hurricane is "made of" molecules in chaotic motion is true but trivial, and it doesn't help the climatologist in any way, neither does it tell you anything about the hurricane because there is no hurricane at the level of molecues. But unlike you, I don't think it shows that hurricane is just "occurence", it shows that "reductionism" of the kind you expouse doesn't work. It "reduces" the very thing you want to study away.

In general this kind of "in principle" reductionism is useless as a way to understand any interesting scientific question. It may be something for philosophers to muse about, but that's about it.

Just don't think yourself immune from philosophical error simply because you think philosophy is a waste of air or worse... "quantum field" is simply our name for a model of observed phenomena employing specific mathematics. "Particles are excitation modes of fields" is not a scientific statement - it's an interpretational statement.

Actually I am immune, at least on this particular issue that you raise. If you follow the discussion the day before on the Hitchens thread I did make it clear what I meant.

I said everything we know about Reality (with the big R), we only know through representations. Particles, fields, space and time, Lagrangians, numbers are all representations of some aspects of Reality. They are all equally "real" or "unreal"

That was in response to Steve who gave preeminance to some "representations" such as particles and "space time" over others, and it would be an equally appropriate response to your last post.

I will answer the rest of your points late tonight.

492. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #276989 by Bonzai on November 2, 2008 at 11:20 pm

QF's avatar is the picture of Darwin's Pitbull.

493. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #276979 by Bonzai on November 2, 2008 at 10:37 pm

MPhil

I have come to the conclusion that "existence" should be reserved entirely for the fundamental constituents of reality according to our best current theory (fundamental particles, strings, whatever). Every"thing" else is just structure - dynamic spatiotemporal accumulations of fundamental constituents, ie structures and patterns.

Except, based on our best current theories, the distinction between "things" and "structure and patterns" is rather blurry. So your entire argument breaks down.

You said a "a hurricane is not a thing ". Well why isn't it? It doesn't seem like a thing to you because it dissipates before your eyes. But what if it retains its cohesion indefinitely, like a soliton? Is it then a "thing" or not?

According to current theories, particles (or strings) are just "structures and patterns" which retain their cohension. Particles are exictation modes of fields. They are like musical notes you play on a guitar string, except in this case there is no guitar string. Quantum fields are mathematical entities.

In elementary physics, fields(like electromagentic fields) are "mathematical fictions" invented to keep track of actions between particles, so that conservation laws hold. There is no a priori reason why such a scheme would work. But it does. Fields provide a simple and consistent discription of observations and allow us to make predictions. So for all intents and purposes they are "real" and in field theory they are taken to be the primary "entities" over the particles.

Your distinction between "patterns and structures" and "things" is based on a naive and out dated view of the world which has been blown apart since the advent of quantum mechanics.

The view that "particles" retain some "fixed and seperate identity" like little ping pong balls is untenable even without going into something as esoteric as string theory or multiverse. In quantum mechanics, "identitical particles" are truly *indistingusible*, it is not just that we can't tell them apart, but treating them as different entities that appear to be the same, like identitical twins, would lead to contradictions with observations. They are *intrinsically* indistinguishable. To put it somewhat poetically, nature can't tell them apart. This fact is manifested in the Bose or Fermi statistics for "counting" identical particles in quantum mechanics, they are different from the classical Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics which assumes the particles are intrinsically different, even though we can't tell them apart.

You probably know all this already, but it is just too tempting to make the distinction as you do, because it is built into our language. As we learn more about the universe, old philosophical categories break down. These categories still seem to be meaningful because they are primarily lingustic constructs and our language,--hence thinking habits,-- still reflects our experience of the "middle world" where it originated. That's why I think it is dangerous to go off philosophical tangents with nothing but words as your tool.

494. Hadron Collider halted for months

Comment #276963 by Bonzai on November 2, 2008 at 9:28 pm

Never trust the engineers. :)

495. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #276961 by Bonzai on November 2, 2008 at 9:16 pm

Titania and Mitchell

I will get an avatar, stay tuned. Just haven't found any good one.

I think Mitchell's avatars somehow convey his personality. They are like his trade mark. Very well picked.

496. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #276957 by Bonzai on November 2, 2008 at 8:57 pm

LGS

Is that good enough?

It is the U.S. So what do you want? As EM said above, he has to be pragmatic (and we should be realistic)

Obama is seriously considered a 'socialist' down there, here we would call him a Progressive Conservative (McCain would be some crazy from the CRAP aka the Alliance who would only get elected in some back water rural ridings. Palin is off the map completely, even Stockwell Day seems more intelligent and less vicious)

497. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #276934 by Bonzai on November 2, 2008 at 7:38 pm

LGS

I read that this morning in the Toronto Star. :)

498. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #276927 by Bonzai on November 2, 2008 at 7:25 pm

LGS

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

I disagree. It is true that Obama disagrees with same sex marriage, but on all other aspects on gay rights he is as progressive as one can expect from a mainstream U.S. politician.

He sponsored a bill in llinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

He supports expanding the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

He supports repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Most remarkably, he believes gays should have the same right to adopt.

While he disagrees with formally recognizing same sex marriage, he supports civil union. he voted against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

The only commonality between Obama and McCain is that they both disagree with recognizing same sex marriage, but on all other points listed above, McCain takes the opposite position (It is not clear whether McCain supports civil union or not)

499. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #276908 by Bonzai on November 2, 2008 at 6:30 pm

My lesbian housemate told me that lesbians must be God's favourite people because they don't do sodomy and wouldn't practise birth control or have abortion.

500. For many evangelicals, it will be the end of the world if Obama wins

Comment #276906 by Bonzai on November 2, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Hey guys. Check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK6Rtkozexs&eurl=http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/11/anti-obama-ad-networks-will-not-run.html