Comments by Bonzai

Comment #273468 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Steve

What is a "chat up line"?

Where the Turing test is being performed?

Comment #273437 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 4:59 pm

What's wrong with redistributing wealth?

Since we still have some number of posts to go on this thread, let me repost a brilliant post of mine from another thread which seems to have been ignored, with some small changes for the discussion at hand:

McCain said Obama "spreads the wealth" and he is for "creating wealth".

But "Wealth creation" is overrated.

There is actually plenty of wealth to go around already. In fact we overproduce.

Every year rich countries destroy tons of produce instead of giving them away in order to prevent a collapse of farm price. You get recessions and starving people in the third world when goods piled up without buyers and those who need the goods cannot afford them.

The problem is not "scarcity", it is circulation. We don't need more wealth creation, we need better distribution.

Most people who work for a living don't "create" wealth. What net wealth is created if you open a retail store, a restuarant? What wealth does a tour agent, a police officer or a doctor create ? They circulate wealth that has already been created.

Also, a lot of so called wealth is not really wealth, they are just hot air bubbles and it stinks to high hell when they burst. What Wall street has created for the last while was not wealth, it was one stinking fart.

Another point is that, people who subscribe to the Protestant view of work implicitly assume that those who get paid add something of value to life in some broad sense, and those who get paid more contribute more. This assumption provides the moral basis for their argument that one is entitled to keeping all that one "earns" through "hard work".

Well this is false as a general rule.

Remuneration in modern economy is often disconnected from contribution to the society in a general senese. This is especially true as one move higher up on the pay scale.

People often get paid enormously for negative contributions. For examples, spin doctors who get paid to decieve people; chemists who make cigerattes more addictive for tobaco companies; currency speculators who make money by basically gambling, and in the process fuck up many people's livlihood; probbaly many people who work in the financial sector playing number games as revealed by current events; scientists who build bombs and WMD; doctors who get paid by HMOs to find loop holes in denying coverage for clients.. the list goes on and on.

In general, one gets rewarded handsomely if he serves the interests of the wealthy and priviledged, it doesn't have to be a reflection to contribution to society.

The bum may not contribute anything but he is ahead of people who contribute negatively, and he doesn't get paid for that.

So stop being self righteous and pompous just because you have a well paid job. It doesn't follow that you create wealth, nor does it follow that you contribute positively to society. It does follow that you are lucky comparing to many people who are struggling a lot harder to stay afloat.

EDITED for some typos and grammatical errors, I am sure there are more.

603. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #273236 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 10:55 am

Eshto

Yeah seriously, Christians having the moxy (yes moxy) to talk about rape?

Didn't God supposedly rape Mary to get her pragnant with Jesus? I don't remember him really asking. It was assumed that Mary would be honoured by his holy dick.

604. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #273221 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 10:32 am

r2s

I understand. But this is an atheist site and I think it is fair to suspect that "the desire to know" may not be motivated by pure curiosity. Some psychological factors may come into play.

Besides, I am not sure the question is even well posed and there are logistic difficulties as I have outlined above.

605. Children need to be sprinkled with fairy dust

Comment #273203 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 9:45 am

DR. Hemeer

But if Prof. Dawkins wants to get research done, than that is his 'taste' and by all means he should look in to it. But that is not my cup of tea

I am not sure how that can be done. Do a longitudinal study of 30 years to find out whether children who have been exposed to fantasies and fairy tales may turn out to be significantly more religious than those who haven't? Where do you find a control group of people who had not been exposed to myths and fantasies as children? I would think such people are very rare and they probably have other issues that may bias the study due to their very abnormal upbringings.

And let's say the study can be done and it is found that there is some kind of correlation between childhood exposure to myths and fantasies and later life religiosity. What is Richard going to do? Crusade against Harry Potter?

606. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #273196 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 9:34 am

Mitchell,

I was talking about children. You are just a crazy adult. :)

607. Interview with Richard Dawkins on fairy tales and retirement

Comment #273185 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 9:19 am

I am sure children are influenced by fantasies and fairy stories at some stage, but I also think that eventually they would outgrow it, for most anyway.

My father told me when he was a child, there were kids who, after reading some Kung Fu comic books, ran away from home in order to seek a master, and then never to be heard from again (well if you want to get a feel of how that might have happened, watch the movie Kung Fu Hustle where the wide eye kid paid all his money to the vagrant for the secret Sholin manual. ) But I think those are extreme cases and shouldn't be taken to be the norm.

Stories and fantasies influence children in many ways, there are positive and negative aspects. But children are also exposed to different influences and they will balance out each other. It is simplistic to say A automatically causes B, the child is not raised in isolation. I am always skeptical of "childhood indoctrination theories" that assume the child to be a passive agent who just takes in all that is told to her. I think it is much more likely that children naturally reinvent, reinterpret and subvert ideas that adult instill in them, with the exception of perhaps only children brought up in very controlled and sheltered environment.

Paradoxically, I think the more we try to artificially control children's environment,--say by filtering out all *irrational* influences,-- the more likely that we will undermine their natural resilience against external influences and make them more gullible and susceptible to authoritarian brainwashing like religion in later life.

Give the kids some credit.

608. Countdown: Palin Wants To Help Special Needs Kids By Doing Away With Science

Comment #273086 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 5:31 am

JPBodner

So GDP growth is wealth creation?

Exxon oil spill contributed quite a bit to the GDP because of the massive clean up afterwards.

So did Y2K. But if they didn't have the design flaw, they wouldn't need to hire people to fix it. The GDP growth would not have materialized. So are you telling me there would have been less wealth creation if we have prevented a problem instead of fixing it afterwards?

If I beat the hell out of you that contributes to GDP as well. Why? They have to send you to the hospital, that creates business for doctors, paramedics and pharmacheutical companies. They have to catch me, creating jobs for cops. When they catch me they have to put me on trial, creating business for lawyers and keeping judges and guards employed. Then they will send me to do time in a privately owned prison,common in the U.S.A, creating business for some corporation.

All economical activities generate GDP growth. The Iraq war and 9/11 contribute quite a bit to the pot. But economical activities is not the same as wealth creation.

Yeah, thanks for the economics lesson. LOL

609. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #273077 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 5:13 am

decius

I can't say if there is anything that Popper said about the scientific method which is not trivial. The scientific method, as a general principle, is just a careful way of being rational (falisabilty etc) It can be explained in a few minutes. The difficult part is actually implementing it in a given situation. That take years to learn. As usual, the philosophers go for the easy part.

As Feynman said, the scientists have been doing what they do, fine tuning their methods from experience for centuries. Then the philosopher came along, he observed the scientists and took notes in his arm chair. He then went home to write his big book on the scientific method, basically like a journalist. When people read the book, they credited the philosopher for inventing the scientific method.

610. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #273073 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 5:04 am

I have no idea what Denette actually contributes to the science of consciousness except involving in a lot of debates and turf wars.

I think the maturity of a science can be measured by the relative uselessness of philosophers. If there is room for philosophers to say anything non trivial it is probably not very well developed.

611. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #273067 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 4:57 am

I think the down fall of philosophy is it arrogantly presumes that it can set the agenda for science, to decide what are legitimate questions and what are acceptable approaches.

The development of science is often haphazard. Different pieces of the puzzle turn up often in unexpected places. It is only after a while that we discover we can put the pieces together to make a picture. This is why science is exciting, it leads us to places and terrains that we didn't anticipate or expect.

If scientists could only ask questions and conduct inquiries in the way that philosphers approve, we would have very little scientific progress, let alone revolutions. Philosphers are pedants, they are easily scandalized and shocked by things that don't fit into their neat world views.

612. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #273055 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 4:35 am

Steve

However what I find dodgy is his linking this (and quantum mechanics) to consciousness.

You are probably right. But I think it is a novel idea. It is based on a hunch as he himself admitted. It may be wrong headed but ultimately it has to be decided on whether it produces results. I don't like to shoot down an idea just because it sounds weird and unorthodox and doesn't fit into the prejudice of some philosophers.

Penrose does many things, consciounsess is just a side project. Something interesting may come out of it, even if it turns out to have little to do with consciousness. Take twistor, for example. I don't know how promising it is in actually fulfilling its original promise. But there are some very fruitful spin offs in mathematical fields like algebraic geometry and integrable systems.

613. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #273050 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 4:19 am

I don't think there is only one way to formulate the question of consciousness. It depends on what you want to ask.

614. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #273048 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 4:17 am

Speaking of consciousness it may be my prejudice, I have an intense dislike of people such as Denette and the Churchlands. I find them dogmatic and arrogant, and probably wrong too.

615. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #273041 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 4:08 am

he seems to think that quantum effects in microtubules has anything to do with the problem of consciousness.

I don't see why not.

My view is, if some one can come up with some interesting science, go for it even if it may not answer the original question. Penrose's approach usually touches on many apparently unrelated things and that is what makes him interesting and creative IMO.

What I really dislike about philosophers is that they always try to set limit on what approach one can use based on their metaphysical commitments,--prejudice. I only care about results. Philosophers thought Boltzmann was crazy in talking about atoms(well he was probably depressed but not crazy)

616. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #273033 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 3:55 am

Stephen Hawking talking about "understanding the Mind of God", Roger Penrose's ideas about consciousness and Platonism

I think these are just musings. Penrose never claims his Platonism to be science, it is just something that intrigues him (and what would a philosopher have told him?).

About his idea of consciousness. His main point was a criticism of strong AI, the critcism is independent on what he proposed as an alternative (I know Putnam criticized his use of Godel, but Putnam appeared to have missed his points, see his rejoinder) If there is a problem with microtubula ,it has to do with physics rather than philsophy from what I understand. Since you can actually appraise his model, it is definitely science, even though he may be wrong.

As for Atkins' debate with Craig, I think he just got caught off guard by the smokescreen of words.

617. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #273025 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 3:40 am

To follow up on irate's post, philosophers can only philosophize based on what we already know. We never discover anything fundamentally revolutionizing through philosophy.

Discoveries in science has many time turned philosophical dogmas and accepted wisdom upside down.

What philosopher would have thought of space and time in the way revealed in Einstein's theories of relativity? What philosopher would have anticipated quantum mechanics and the way it fundamentally changes our understanding of reality?

On the other hand, since philsophy has become a specialized discipline, it rarely has any contribution to science, except to hinder it by insisting on yoking science to various philosophical dogmas and -isms, which are just prejudice of the day wraped in profound sounding words.

We can never discovered anything unexpected by playing word games.

618. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #273006 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 2:49 am

Steve

However, the best theories we have for physics at the moment are multiverse theories in which variation of physical parameters is a natural part of the theory. In other words, if you want to end up with just one universe, with one set of parameters, you have to add more to the theory.

We are getting a multiverse not from the arbitrary assumptions that the physical parameters can vary, and there must be more universes, but from the best theories we have of the physics of our universe.

So ok.

I think this is a different argument.

What you are saying here is that the multiverse must exist as a result of the variability of the constant, which you take as an apriori assumption.

But before I thought you were trying to explain the particular values of the constants by invoking the multiverse (which is what many people do, including Dawkins)

I think you still need to describe how they may vary and find a way to test it. But this is a different argument which doesn't have to appeal to the multiverse.

619. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #273004 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 2:41 am

Steve

That comes out of each multiverse theory (such as String Theory, or infinite eternal inflation).

So there is a theory, not just statistical fluctuations. That is different from the way you argue for the constants here.

Because they aren't physical.

So what are they? Is this dualism? :)

620. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #273002 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 2:39 am

Steve

No, because we aren't talking about probability distributions here. We are talking about frequency distributions of occurrence.

Then bascially you are saying this combination of values exists because it exists. It is circular.

Moreover, I fail to see how it is "inevitable" as you told Mitchell, it just "is" based on what you say here. This is not an explanation.

621. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272993 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 2:19 am

Steve

But this universe is not a set of measure zero.

You mean this combination of parameter values in our univeres. But how do you know it is not? It depends on the measure you choose.

In fact it definitely is a set of measure zero if you put ANY continous probability distribution across the multiverse. With a continuous distribution you will have non zero measure only if you allow a small band of parameter values around the values we have, hence no "fine tuning" after all.

622. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272990 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 2:11 am

Steve

It certainly is inevitable. The reason is that given an infinite set, the chances of a given combination of parameters not appearing is zero.

No. That was what I was saying. you can miss a set of measure zero. There is always this provision in statistical theorems.

This isn't about picking out a given rational number, it is about whether the number exists at all.

I was illustrating that even a "typical" set can have measure zero under a reasonable distribution.

And "exist" I take it to mean being generated in a random fluctuation without constraint. Otherwise what you wrote is circular.

623. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272980 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 2:01 am

Brian

I happen to agree with you. I think, if the question is to explain the laws of this universe, it seems cheating to artificially embed it in an imaginary statistical ensemble of univeres (the multiverse) which we have no evidence whatsoever for their existence and then claim that there is nothing to explain because it is just statistical fluctuations.

We can "explain" almost everything like that. Take gravity. Maybe the law(s) of gravity are different in the multiverse, all laws are possible with some probability and ours is the way it is because it is just a statistical fluctuation.

Maybe I misunderstood, but this seems to be what steve and Mphil are arguing.

Maybe "fine tuning" is really a non question, but I don't think this is the way to argue that.

There are also other conceptual difficulties. What laws do we assume to hold only in our universe, and which are supposed to hold across the muliverse and why? Why are our logic and mathematics and probability theory valid across the whole multiverse?

624. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272972 by Bonzai on October 28, 2008 at 12:56 am

Steve

If the full range of parameters occurs then our universe becomes inevitable, not a matter of luck.

Actually no. It is not "inevitable".

This is an argument based on what is called the "infinite monkeys theorem", which is the mathematically precise way of saying that if there are infinitely many monkeys typing randomly for an infinite amount of time eventually they will produce the complete work of Shakespeare.

There is a wrinkle however. In all this type of theorems, there is always a caveat: with the possible exception of a set of measure zero.

Now in actual terms what is "measure zero" depends on how you define your probability measure. The complete work of Shakespeare (or the parameters that permit structures) may just turn out to be in that set of measure zero that is missed by the monkeys.

So you are back to square one. How do you put a probability distribution (or measure) of the parameters across the multiverse?

A set is "small" in the sense of measure (or probability, if you like, assuming the measure can be normalized)may still be "typical" in another sense.

For example, the set of rational numbers between 0 and 1 has Lebesque measure 0. Roughly this means that if you pick a real number at random between 0 and 1, the probability that you will get a rational number is 0. So it is an impossible event to pick out a rational number randomly if you assume a uniform distribution on the closed interval [0,1]. On the other hand, the rational numbers are "typical" in the sense that you can approximate any real number arbitrarily closely by rational numbers. Another way of saying this is, if you pick any small open interval between 0 and 1, no matter how small, it will always contain infinitely many rational numbers.

I am not sure the multiverse approach is as parsimonious as you said once you have to get down to the details.

625. Countdown: Palin Wants To Help Special Needs Kids By Doing Away With Science

Comment #272956 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 11:35 pm

cerebate

How do you think education should be tackled? Should each state teach whatever it wants to?

He believes in home schooling.

626. Countdown: Palin Wants To Help Special Needs Kids By Doing Away With Science

Comment #272954 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 11:33 pm

The US defense budget is clearly ridiculous. A lot of it is probably because of the corporate interest

The U.S. defence spending is a way to subsidize industry without investing in the civil society.

The term for it is "military Keynesianism"

In Japan and Europe, corporations get subsidized, but at least they build things that actually benefit the society. With higher living standard and aspirations, the citizens would demand more rights. In the U.S. the subsidies go into building waste and death, only with secondary spin offs for the civilian society.

In this way, it serves the purpose of proping up industries while keeping the people ignorant and stupid.

627. Countdown: Palin Wants To Help Special Needs Kids By Doing Away With Science

Comment #272941 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 11:15 pm

JPBodner

I believe you have a right to the wealth you create.

Don't know what you do for a living. But most people who get paid don't "create wealth". Do you create wealth by opening a restaurant or a retail store? What exactly is created? It is mere circulation of wealth.

When you take a dump in the toilet, it doesn't create anything, nothing goes in, nothing comes out.

"Wealth creation" is overrated.

Firstly a lot of so called wealth is just hot air bubbles and it stinks to high hell when they burst. What Wall street has created for the last while was not wealth, it was one stinking fart.

Secondly, there is enough to go around already. In fact we overproduce.

Do you know every year rich countries destroy tons of produce instead of giving them away in order to prevent a collapse of farm price? You get recessions and starving people in the third world when goods piled up without buyers and those who need the goods cannot afford them. The problem is not "scarcity", it is circulation.

It is also not true that people who get paid always add something of value to life in some broad sense.

Often people get paid enormously for negative contributions. For examples, spin doctors who get paid to decieve people; chemists who make cigerattes more addictive for tobaco companies; currency speculators who make money by basically gambling, and in the process fuck up many people's livlihood; probbaly many people who work in the financial sector playing number games as revealed by current events; scientists who build bombs and WMD; doctors who get paid by HMOs to find loop holes in denying coverage for clients.. the list goes on and on.

The bum may not contribute anything but he is ahead of people who contribute negatively, and he doesn't get paid for that.

So stop being self righteous and pompous about the fact that you have a paid job. It doesn't follow that you create wealth, nor does it follow that you contribute positively to society.

Edited, expanded and reposted

628. Countdown: Palin Wants To Help Special Needs Kids By Doing Away With Science

Comment #272928 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 10:45 pm

NakedCelt

Progressive taxation, sure, but if a company decides voluntarily to contribute to the economy -- to employ locally, for instance, to buy local supplies, to fund educational institutions, to help out with environmental efforts -- then they should get a concession to at least that amount on their tax

That's why we should have targeted tax breaks with string attached rather than a blanket tax concession to all business hoping that they may create job or contribute to R&D. It is nuts to give tax breaks to companies even as they are outsourcing offshore.

629. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272893 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 10:14 pm

I think QF is high most time when he posts here. I usually have no clue what he is talking about.

Even though I am God, I am not omnipotent, you know.

630. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272870 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 9:58 pm

I am God.

631. Countdown: Palin Wants To Help Special Needs Kids By Doing Away With Science

Comment #272869 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 9:57 pm

NO, the planet will be just fine. The planet is not going anywhere until the sun blows up into a red giant

See Brian English's edit. I am sure you know what I meant.

632. Countdown: Palin Wants To Help Special Needs Kids By Doing Away With Science

Comment #272854 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Yes you take nothing when you die, but you leave things to your family and children.

A few more years of reckless plundering of the evironment and unchecked greed we won't have a planet to leave to our children.

EDIT: But then President Palin might trigger an armageddon even before then, it will all be over. Let's see how far your money would get you then.

633. Countdown: Palin Wants To Help Special Needs Kids By Doing Away With Science

Comment #272842 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Property right. What a joke. We were born with nothing and take nothing away. We are mere custodians.

634. Countdown: Palin Wants To Help Special Needs Kids By Doing Away With Science

Comment #272838 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 9:25 pm

Fuller

Good point, greed has indeed been the undoing of past civilisations. History can be added to the list of subjects that the US desperately needs more education in.

On this topic I recommend Ronald Wright's 2004 Massey lecture. It is called "A brief history of progress" and is published in book form. I think there is also a pod cast online. I heard Jarad Diamond's "collapse" is good too, though I haven't read it.

I want to know how he reconciles the blatant anti-science attitude of his party with..

His answer is as I have predicted. Everything else can go to hell as long as he can pay less taxes.

It is only in the U.S. that "spread the wealth" is suppose to evoke fear, most civilzed societies would find that reasonable, that is what society is for: we work together to provide for each other, we cooperate as a "team",--to use business jargon. It is only in the U.S. that unlimited private hording of wealth is considered a "right" and sacred commandment by a large number of people. Ironically these are usually people who have no wealth and claim to believe in Jesus (Dp being an exception for the Jesus part)They must think Jesus was some 1st century TV evangelist.

well, with the fact that he calls himself Darwins Pitbull

Oh, I am sure he means social Darwinism.

He said he is for stem cell reseach. Well what is the point if most people cannot afford it and a large number cannot even have a run of the mill operation without going bankrupt?

635. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272805 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 8:36 pm

debacles

What is not our "interpretation" by that argument? Yes, our brains organize information. But you are saying, if I read you correctly, symmetry is just like grouping stars into constellations and name them after mythical characters. But it is not like that

Symmetry has physical consequences, symmetry considerations allows us to make specific predictions. (general relativity, group theory, Noether theorem, "eightfold path" in particle physics, pattern formation) So, it is not just a way our brain use to organize data. It is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

636. Countdown: Palin Wants To Help Special Needs Kids By Doing Away With Science

Comment #272797 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Fuller

DP, as an atheist, I assume you respect and understand the science based argument for issues including stem cell research and abortion - not to mention the importance of the understanding of astronomy...Does your position on these matters conflict with the Republican party position' And if so, how do you reconcile that' Is it, as far as you're concerned, that these matters are simply not as important as economic ones' Or is it something else

Anyone who would vote for a ticket including Palin,--who quite likely would have her finger on the button because McCain might very well kick the bucket,-- just because he's got to keep his "wealth" is a selfish prick who has no sense of priority. So basically you have your answer already: fuck everyone and everything else as long as I can pay less taxes on my 250K pay cheque.

The funny thing is most of these "Joe the Plumber" types actually end up paying more under McCain because they don't make 250k, they are just sad wanabes.

Selfish and stupid, what a winning combo. This is the kind of mentality that has in the past led to the fall of great civilziations when people short sightedly exhausted all their resources. Except now stupidity and selfishness actually have an impressive yet ironic name: conservatism. Just what do they "conserve"?

637. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272793 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 8:16 pm

Symmetry is a by-product of our multi-dimensional reality and our assuming brain

No, it is not. You can actually quantify symmetry using group theory and it has far reaching consequences such as all the conservation laws. If symmetry is just perception of the brain so it would be all of science.

638. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272785 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Like I said, interesting patterns are formed by breaking symmetry. Technically that means the isotropic group becomes smaller, you can actually quantify it.

639. Countdown: Palin Wants To Help Special Needs Kids By Doing Away With Science

Comment #272778 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 7:43 pm

JPBodner

People who think that my money is not mine don't understand that wealth is created and destroyed. It doesn't just move around.

People keep saying "wealth creation". I wonder how much wealth do we need and how much of our real economy is based on "wealth creation".

Now we are told everyday that we lost billions and billions of dollars we are going to be fucked soon. So how does "wealth" suddenly disappear out of thin air if it has actually been created? Is this Heisenberg uncertainty principle for economics?

But why are we in troubles? The real production infrastructures are still here. We can still grow enough food for everyone, a roof over everyone's head. We still have awesome technology. We still have able and willing workers.We still have demands for goods and services. So ON THE GROUND what has changed? Nothing really.

It seems a lot of this "wealth creation" rhetorics is just bull shit. Much of what is going on is people getting rich on numbers on computer screen (and ruined by them) This phantom wealth is fueling much of the so called growth.

How much "wealth" is enough? It is insane that we have to keep on creating waste, consumming and raping the planet in order to keep "the economy" humming. Why is it that people are screwed if we have a growth of say less than 1%? I would think it may be a sign that everyone is happy and satisfied so they don't want or need more. But if everyone is content it would lead to a recession and people are once again fucked,--even though we have enough.

But Economists call this insanity "rational".

640. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272767 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 7:28 pm

At this stage the only honest answer is "we don't know, we are working on it." There is no point arguing whether multiverse is "parsimonous" as if we have a lot of competing theories to choose from. We don't even have one.

641. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272763 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Mitchell

Symmetry is largely what beauty is based on. For humans, and other animals. We all tend to love symmetry.

Well we are actually drawn to regular patterns. But regular patterns actually have less symmetry than a blank sheet or a void. This is called "broken symmetry".

A fascinating book on pattern formation by symmetry breaking is "Fearful symmetry" by Stewart and Golubitsky

http://www.amazon.com/Fearful-Symmetry-Geometer-Ian-Stewart/dp/0631182519

Nevermind the "God" reference It is just a literary device.

642. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272755 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 7:10 pm

I should note that "multiverse" is not a theory, not even a hypothesis, for "fine tuning" without some detail constraints on what distributions these parameters may take across the multiverse. Merely saying that the parameters can "float" without saying how they float is cheating.

A note to steve: You said "any distribution, even random". Actually all probability distributions are "random". I think you mean the uniform distribution when you said "random". But uniform distribution may not work, the multiverse may be "too big". For example, you cannot put a uniform distribution on all of the real line because it is not normalizable. The real line is not compact. So in order that you can put the uniform distribution on the multiverse you would have to either assume or prove somehow based on other assumptions that it is compact. Once you take into account all the details you may not have a "parsimonious" theory anymore.

643. Premier debates with Dawkins

Comment #272729 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 6:50 pm

I am sick of this kind of debate because of the dishonesty of theists. It is as if we can't just honestly say "we don't know, we are still working on it" because all admission of ignorance would be taken to be "evidence" for God. That is really twisted.

Science doesn't have answers to all questions because a proposed answer has to pass many tests in science in order to be accepted. Religion always has answers because their "answers" are always the same: God did it. It doesn't have to meet any standard. If scientists allow that kind of lazy "answers" we would have already "solved" all problems except that we won't gain any knowledge from that approach.

So, yes, science doesn't have all the answers and that is exactlt why it is a real way of knowing. The existence of open questions in science is a testimony for its strength, not its weakness. Religion always has answers but they are worthless bullshit answers.

"Answers" are cheap if you don't have to conform to any standard.The fact that theists would think it is some kind of victory to catch science saying "I don't know" and gloat about it indicates they are not even aware that their answers are craps and that they have shit for brains.

EDITED for gramatical and spelling errors.

644. May your god go with you

Comment #272061 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 12:21 am

Vin

There are people who eat only fruits and nuts. :)

P.S. I do eat meat, though not a big meat eater.

645. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #272058 by Bonzai on October 27, 2008 at 12:06 am

Yea like Venezuela. I hear they are doing great over there. You should take a trip there to go take a look at the wonderful things that happen when government takes control of those.

So what is so horrible there that the government is investing the oil wealth into education, health and nutrition, improving the lives of its citizens? Why do you prefer the country's resource be controlled by an oligarchy just to enrich a handful of already rich people and U.S. investors, while leaving the vast majority in abject poverty?

Yeah, thanks to the magic wonder of the "free market" that 60% of Venezuelans lived in slums and garbage dumps, with no medicine, no basic amenities for modern living and a staggering national illiteracy rate despite the enormous oil revenue. It is a real crime to "spread the wealth" around. What galls they have to throw out the "capitalists" like the Europeans kicking out the Kings and confiscating the Church's assets, oh the horror.

You disgust me.

646. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #272053 by Bonzai on October 26, 2008 at 11:45 pm

Funny, yesterday I read that Obama's polls lead was shrinking drastically because McCain emphasized addressing economic issues more these days. Either McCain's economy comments are much better than the news report, or the constituents prefer to decide by quantity before quality.

Who knows what last minute dirty trick the GOP may pull. There are lots of stupid and brain dead people in the U.S., just take a look at DP here. Anyone with more than two brain cells should wonder why there is even a race after McCain has picked Palin and has been carrying on all the smear about Bill Ayer clearly to divert attentions.

Before Obama actually wins anything can happen. Today the U.S. attacked Syria, apparently killing a whole bunch of civilians according to the news. It is as if the Bush administration is trying to create a crisis and hopefully a security situation in order to help the "Maverick".

647. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #272022 by Bonzai on October 26, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Comment #272017 by Mitchell Gilks

You nail it.

648. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #271987 by Bonzai on October 26, 2008 at 8:54 pm

I feel like Josef K in a Kafka story whenever I read psychobables from people such as Shrommer. I was convicted and condemned, and then apparently "forgiven", and all the while I have no clue what was it I did that needed forgiveness to begin with.

Moreover, if God is so generous why didn't he just wave his magic wand to "forgive" us and then let it go? Instead he had to make a big point by role playing in a Mel Gibson horror show of blood and gore and then keep bringing it up over and over expecting us to be grateful and worship him (for being "forgiven" for some "sin" we haven't the foggest clue about and his self inflicted torture.)

Isn't that kind of petty and twisted? If I really forgive someone, I wouldn't even mention it again. It is water under the bridge and that's that. If someone tells me he has forgiven me but keeps on telling me again and again how kind he is and how unworthy I am for his forgiveness I can only conclude that it is a lame attempt for guilt tripping and I would just tell him to fuck off. Go ahead and bear a grudge, I don't need the hypocrisy.

649. 'People say I'm strident'

Comment #271940 by Bonzai on October 26, 2008 at 7:23 pm

Diancu