201. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #286098 by Bonzai on November 18, 2008 at 7:06 am

Dianelos believes he is in a purely supernatural/mental reality. There is no physical world at all. It is all illusory. The active "force" in this reality is "mind".

Then why not my mind? It certainly seems more real than Jesus. Maybe I = Jesus = Dianelos = you?!

I am more convinced that Dianelos is high on acid. Maybe he's cool dude to smoke a joint together and listen to Marley.

202. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #286096 by Bonzai on November 18, 2008 at 6:58 am

Actually, the more I read Dianelos the more confused I am. What is he trying to argue? It seems that his "God" is something like aether, not detectable, does nothing yet has a mind (or is a mind).

I think he is high between his "very boring tasks". If that is the case good for him.

203. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #286004 by Bonzai on November 18, 2008 at 12:34 am

Brian (sorry fixed the typo already)

If you grant this, then a mind isn't an extra-temporal entity

I would say the mind is not even a disembodied entity. It has to have "content",--attributes. All attributes of "minds" that we know are tied to a body and bodily experience. By that I don't just mean mind has to have a material substrate. Rather, much stronger, we cannot even describe what a mind does without referring to things such as perception, emotions, memory, etc.

Pure computational power can be described abstractly, but it would be a stretch to call that a "mind".

204. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #285996 by Bonzai on November 18, 2008 at 12:19 am

Brian

God can't be a mind under Dianelos' ideas as he's explained them because God exists outside of time and is thus Platonic and invariant

Then what the hell does it do? Just sitting there being "one"?

I guess he's saying a mind is like his Platonic numbers.

You can describe numbers, say specific things about them (theorems in number theory, say) and do things with them.

What can we say about Danelos' God and what can we do with it?

205. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #285994 by Bonzai on November 18, 2008 at 12:15 am

Danelos

Naturalists ascribe reality to the concepts entailed in the model of general relativity, so they believe that mass curves spacetime. But they don't ascribe reality to the concepts entailed in the model of quantum electrodynamics, so they don't believe that between our observing a particle at A and then at B that particle has passed through all points of the universe

Obviously there are different kinds of "naturalists" as you obvious know based on my recent intense debate with certain people here.

If I understand your question about QED correctly one possible answer could be that renormalization is mathematically fishy. Summing over all "histories" typically leads to divergent integrals and the way to fix it, though works, doesn't make mathematical sense (If any first year student tries to pull something similar in a calculus exam he would get a big fat zero, no question about it)To many this indicates some crucial understanding of the underlying process is still missing.

That's difficult to do because nothing about the mind appears to be corporal in the first place. We can't fail knowing what consciousness is: consciousness is how it is like to be us. Now we do detect a particular class of stable patterns *within* conscious experience which we call material things (e.g. apples) but it is very difficult to argue that consciousness itself is a material thing or has some necessary connection with material things. That's why the famous mind-body problem is so hard.

All these attributes I mentioned are corporal in the sense that they are tied to a material subsrrate. You can alter these attributes by changing the state of the body.

What is a "pure consciousness" without perception, without will, without personality, without emotion, without memory? It is not "like what it is to be us".

Again give me a reasonable description, otherwise "pure consciousness" is only a word with no meaning.

Sorry I haven't a chance to read your take on metaphysics, I will take a look when I get around to it.

206. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285978 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 11:25 pm

decius

Well, one of the tenet of PoMo is that western values are just another narrative. Western civilisation is therefore no more advanced than any aboriginal culture. This is eerily similar to Diamond's thesis.

When did Diamond say that Western civilization,-- as it stands now,--is no more advanced than aboriginal cultures?

Based on what I read he was trying to understand "why" indeed that is the case (Yali's question)

In an attempt to answer that he asked the broader question of why some civilizations developed into higher level of sophistications while others didn't.

That doesn't sound like denying some societies are materially more advanced than others. It was his starting point.

Maybe I am missing something or you are reading a different book.

I totally agree, but he fails to provide evidence. He just tells a beautiful story. In history departments he is the butt of all jokes.

That is another surprise to me. Actually he laid out his evidence very carefully and made rather compelling arguments based on evidence. You may disagree with his intepretations of the data, but it would be difficult to argue that he did not present evidence.

If it says that Diamond provides evidence for his pseudoscientific claims, you will find 1000 other which say he doesn't. Look them up for yourself, I don't care.

Actually I did look up some of the critics. First off there are quite a few people who disagree on ideological ground, like some Marxists. Those are hardly more "scientific" by any stretch of the imagination.

A common criticism by professional historians is that Diamond overemphasized geography and natural constraints while ignoring finer points such as institutions and culture.

Now first of all if you want to argue like a hard nose empircist there is much more concrete data you can gather from Diamond's angle than by talking about things like "culture".

Secondly, Diamond has acknowleged that he was interested in the broad picture, outlining some powerful natural constraints that sent civilizations on divergent courses in the very begining. He did not address the fine, proximity causes of individual events which are well covered by conventional historians. He looked at 13000 years of human history from a bird eye's view. The critics who argue that he didn't put enough emphasis on say the role Renaissance might have on the industrial revolution are completely missing the point.

I sense that you are offended because Diamond didn't say loudly enough "the West is BETTER". Making this kind of value judgement has nothing to do with science.

207. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #285962 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 10:07 pm

John Blund was indeed at twelfth century theologian.

And James Blunt is indeed a horrible 21st century pop star. :) Don't know why I write this.

208. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #285946 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Brian

Sorry, I trademarked them already. :)

209. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #285940 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Dianelos

Teapots are things produced on Earth

Have you observed a disembodied mind? Where?

Everything we know about "mind" and "intelligence" comse from observing ourselves,--humans,--and to a lesser extent animals.

What is a disembodied mind like? Care to describe it?

Does it have perception of time flow, spatial dimensions, colour, size of objects? Does it have memory? Does it have a personality? Now all these attributes are tied to the body as observing brain damaged patients, --among other things,--clearly reveals.

So substract away everything that is coporal about the mind, what is left? What is "pure consciousness" like?

I want descriptions.

210. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285933 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Decius

He isn't even mainstream - his work is speculative, unscientific and appeasing PoMo's ideas

I am afraid you are being unfair.

How did he appease POMO ideas? I don't know what is the standard of "scientific" rigor is in macro history. Perhaps you can point us to a few authors who in your opinions are more scientific?

As for not being mainstream, I think that is what ground breaking original synthesis is all about.

Of course not all original ideas are intellectually rigorous, but then it is not true either that ideas deviating from the mainstream are automatically wrong and should be dismissed out of hand, especially when you are talking about a discipline where the mainstream approach is anything but scientific,--from what I have gathered ,that's why I ask you for references. At least Diamond tries to approach the subject scientifically using multidisciplinary methodology and data.

P.S. On the other thread about the existence Mohammad it seems that you have no problem embracing ideas which are way off the mainstream and completely at odds with professional consensus. And you did that apparently based only on the his conclusion rather than the case he built since I don't think you have read his books or papers at all.

211. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285926 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Decius

Duh. Doesn't that denote an incapability and a failure to think abstractly and to plan ahead?
Something he can't certainly accuse the Western civilisation of.

I didn't sense that Diamond was taking an adversary, them better than us mentality. It seems that in some way we tend to fall in the same trap of short sightedness when it comes to over exploiting our resources. In that way more advanced societies may actually fuck up more spectacularly.

Another book on a similar theme is Ronald Wright's 2004 Massey lecture. It is published under the title "A Brief History Of Progress". Highly recommended.

(P.S. Seeing from this perspective DP's idea that we should entrust our long term welfare to the "free market" which is only good at rewarding short term thinking is completely insane)

212. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285918 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 7:57 pm

decius

The stimuli we receive are of a much higher complexity and we deal with many of them as if they were our second nature, almost automatically.

Many people recieve their stumuli from TV these days. It is not really that complex a task to use the remote.

I know people who wake up everyday, go to work in some service jobs that don't require a lot of skills, go shopping, watch TV .. It seems that this is the typical lifestyle of a large number of people.

213. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285890 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Actually as individuals we are probably on average dumber than humans who live in technologically backward societies.

One benefit of civilization and technology is that we are protected from natural selection and we don't have to live on our wits everyday.

214. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285886 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Mitchell

Everyone didn't invent a wheel, only a few people did, and everyone else was taught about it. I wasn't saying that the native Americans lacked all of the things I mentioned. I meant that Europeans had much more of all of it. So I think that a Native American would have had the idea eventually, but just didn't before Europeans showed up.

You should check out Jarad Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" if you haven't already. In it he gave a fascinating geographical account for technological innovations.

For example, he made the case that a major reason for the technological sophistication of "Eurasian" civilizarions( Europe, Asia and the Middle East) was the availability of large, domesticable animals such as horses and cows.

Apparently very few species can be domisticated. For example there is none in Africa (nobody has been able to domesticate the zebra, for example, which otherwise might be a good alternative to horses)

215. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #285720 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 1:41 pm

sciros

DP has been presented with an overwhelming amount in this thread alone, but remains stubborn in his simplistic and inaccurate convictions.

That is exactly what a pitbull is like. They are very stubborn and they are also known to be one of the most stupid breed of dogs.

216. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285708 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 1:31 pm

flying goose

I might be wrong, but that is freedom.

years ago I put on a uniform and carried a rifle and was prepared to defend that freedom with my life. What i was defending was human freedom, not truth, which can take care of itself.

I agree with your sentiment. However, in the real world it is not so much atheists trying to force you to give up your belief. It is religious people running around trying to shove their beliefs down others' throats. I am not saying all religious people are like that, clearly you are not,--if you are still religious. But enough of them are. Just think of the missionaries!

It is also the religious people who condemn others' lifestyle as "immoral" and wish punishment on them either in this life or the afterlife. While atheists here do tend to take a dim view on religious beliefs. None as far as I know argues religious belief in and of itself is immoral and that people who hold such beliefs should be punished.

So yes, I agree whole heartedly with you on the freedom to believe (and not believe), but I think you are arguing with the wrong people over this.

217. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285690 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Actually most of my friends and acquitances are atheists. It is not by choice, it just happens that way. One of my brothers claims to be devout Catholic, but he's sort of a compulsive liar and I am fairly sure that he says that just to fool his wife.

I live in an environment where being religious would make you the odd man out.

218. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285669 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 12:57 pm

fg

but it can kill a lot of people.

There won't be any conflict when we are all dead. :)

P.S. I was joking!

219. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285667 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 12:55 pm

flying goose

Are you a John Spong kind of Christian?

I remember you announced recently that you have become an agnostic, do I remember wrong?

P.S. I always find you very reasonable and enjoy your posts.

220. Atheism, a positive pillar

Comment #285659 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 12:45 pm

flying goose

Isn't this a resolution of conflict, in my A level Politics class, politics was defined as the resolution of conflict.

Do we really want a war between believers and non believers?

But war is one way to resolve conflict.

Sorry, I am just trying to be cute. :)

221. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #285644 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Al (to DP)

Where is your evidence to suggest the totally free market works' I think capitalists that say Capitalism will fix all the problems of the world are as ridiculous as socialists that say the same.

Well don't you get it, when the free market doesn't works, it is always someone else's fault or people are not acting in ways that the market demands of them.

So the market always "works" in DP's fantasy world.

There is an exact parallel to religious thinking. If good things happen to you, God takes the credit, if shit happens, well that's your fault.

The market is a God for DP. It is not a tool, but a moral agent that rewards the worthy and punishes the undeserving.

222. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #285639 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 12:29 pm

decius

The Jewish monopoly on money-lending in parts of Europe during the Middle Ages.

I think there was a Jewish monopoly because Jews were not allowed to own land while Christians were forbidden from usuary. Does that count as state/Church collusion?

I can be wrong since my understanding of European history is relatively superficial.

223. Educated Catholics have sown dissent and confusion in the Church, claims bishop

Comment #285356 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 3:56 am

Maybe the Pope should declare that it is a sin to attend university. That may help.

224. Richard Dawkins: An Exclusive Profile

Comment #285341 by Bonzai on November 17, 2008 at 3:27 am

57. Comment #284214 by Layla Nasreddin

Yes, indeed, though she's [Judy Collins] also known for songs like "Both Sides Now"

Actually "Both Sides Now" is by Joni Mitchell. A famous Judy Collins song I can think of is "Some Day soon".

225. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285204 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 8:03 pm

Mitchell

Spike is hot.

EDIT: But Steve likes the library guy, I don't get it. :)

226. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285202 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 8:00 pm

Sorry max, typo.

227. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285199 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 7:55 pm

Shrommer

Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here.

Yeah we know, he was a very demanding and needy child because his dad neglected him, knowing that immculate conception was a lie to save Mary from being stoned to death.

228. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285193 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Steve

Yes, but look at the state she was in afterwards! She was a traumatised wreck, barely even able to fight vampires. It took her a whole series to recover!

I thought the side effect was that she started sleeping with Spike. :)

229. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285191 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 7:42 pm

Shrommer,

If you think you're witnessing for your "God" here you are being a very poor advertisement. After listening to your testimonies I bet most people here would be even less inclined to believe in Jesus than before. For what you reveal to us is a very damaged person, both intellectually and pyschologically. You should serve as a warning to the harm of religious indoctrinations.

I am telling you, everytime when I hear a Christian thumping off the Bible with ease for ready made answers I feel a chill down my spine. How much does it take to turn a thinking person into a zombie like that?

230. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285184 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 7:35 pm

Steve

A dead body in a grave or in a crypt for several days is a mess. It would require huge amounts of energy to reverse the decay molecule-by-molecule to get something back which could be a living person.

Did you watch how Buffy's flesh and organs grew back in the grave?

231. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285169 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 7:18 pm

It is a given that he has no evidence for his magical claims. But what I find more worthy to explore is his very twisted views on love, freedom and morality. They are infinitely worse than just believing in fairy tales.

232. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285165 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 7:15 pm

Shrommer

By reminding us of the cross, if God is even doing that, (and how can you say God is doing that if you don't even believe there is a God?), ... by reminding us of the cross, God is reminding us that He is not sweeping justice under the carpet when He forgives us. He still repays all our evil with punishment, from the tiniest white lie or theft we commit, to the worst kind of torture and murder. That the punishment was on Christ instead of us is not a reminder to bring us more guilt, but a reminder to reassure us that no punishment awaits us. He is reminding us that all His anger and wrath against us has been satisfied, so that we are not afraid to approach Him and are not afraid of making Him mad or going to hell.

What is the cross for an infinite being? It sounds like a deliberate grand gesture to impress rather than sincere "forgiveness" (for what?) Exactly what I meant by emotional blackmailing and psychological manipulation.

233. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285155 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Shrommer

I was answering that God doesn't force anyone to go to heaven.

But he would actively condemn people to hell unless they worship him. How is that not "force"? No, Stalin didn't force you to obey him either, if you don't it is the gulag or a bullet in your head, you have your free choice.

Now a more reasonable spin I heard from psychologically slightly more healthy Christians is this. God warns us about the abyss, by not heeding his warning we choose our downfall.

The problem of this is threefold

1) It is not compatible with an all knowing, all compassionate God. If it is within my power to save you from being run over by a car, you bet I will even though you ignored my warning earlier. If I could save you but instead fold my arms and watch you being run over because you didn't listen to me, that would be sheer spite and I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

2) This narrative doesn't fit with the Bible, because God would be the one who actually do the judging and sending you to hell. He has a choice. It is not just some abyss lying there that he was warning you about and you fall in because you ignore the warning sign. He pushes you in.

3) Why didn't he just fill up the bloody abyss if he is so powerful? conclusion: he left it there as a trap.

234. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285142 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 6:42 pm

At least the Muslims only threaten to kill you and don't try to guilt trip you with this teary eye, corny "love" pitch. The Christians are the worst manipulators.

235. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285137 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 6:36 pm

To me what is most disturbing about people like Shrommer is not that they believe in nonsense, but the utterly vile morality and twisted notion of "love" that they expouse.

The new age guy may be just as gullible in believing in hocus pocus and magic, but, this, is sick.

236. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285127 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 6:32 pm

"How many people can an individual be'"

The record is 13 apparently for people suffering from split personality disorder. It is a symptom of childhood abuse I was told, having that "God" character as your dad would probably do it.

237. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285118 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 6:18 pm

My response was to Bonzail who was suggesting a blanket forgiveness

No, I was suggesting that there is nothing that we have done that requires "forgiveness". And if he has truly forgiven (for whatever I am not sure) he shouldn't be going on harping on it all the time and uses it to make us feel guilty, unworthy, dirty and in debt to him(thus to "love" him). This is not "forgiveness", it is emotional blackmail, it is psychological abuse(even forgetting the threat of hell part)

This behaviour fits totally with the profile of an insecure manipulative, vindictive, and hypocritical person. If this God of yours exists, he should see a shrink. No wonder no one wants to play with him and he had to create his own puppets to praise him.

238. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #285111 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 6:10 pm

If God is a lover, he should be given a restrianing order. He sounds like the creepy boyfriend who stalks, harasses and threatens his object of affection. Moreover he has a taste for hardcore S&M that really hurts.

Now what does it say about Shrommer to have fallen in love with such a sicko?

239. Uncertain times for US Religious Right

Comment #285109 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Nietzsche wrote "The Gay Science". Now that is a real title.

240. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284959 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 10:00 am

Mphil

Well, you'd better if you don't want to be irrational and a completely arrogant prick.

What? According to you? I have been called worst things by better people.

Your dogmatic, idiotic conviction that philosophy is worthless

If I am dogmatic about philosophy let's just say that your verbose postings only convince me that I have been right all along.

I sense very little in your posts that would change my mind about philosophy, once stripped away the pretentious jargons, multi-syllable words and hot air (Much like Dianelos by the way and almost just as long and verbose) Sorry, I know better to fall for that.

in combination with your refusal to deal with labels of your position (to avoid having to realize how dogmatic and ideologically confused you are)

Well I don't have a firm position on ontology, as I have said and argued why that is the case. My approach is to take whatever that seems reasonable, based on how useful it is to make predictions and produce coherent descriptions of the world which can be dynamically updated and modified in a robust way in light of new data. That is all we can ask for.

Other than that I don't commit to any ontology. I think this is a minimalist position

What you call "reification of mathematics" or "Platonism" has proven to be very fruitful in physics at least. So I think that makes sense.

On the other hand, the idiotic program you propose of transcribing everything to finitude (not only as approximations, but "ontologically" finite as well) is so stupid that it doesn't even deserve a rebuttal. One word, it will kill most of mathematics as well as a lot of science that depends on it. This is what happens when philosophers talk about subjects based only on caricatures.

I can go on to explain why treating mathematics as mere formal system is missing the point, and this is indeed the root of your errors on a whole lot of related issues. But I would just leave it as that, I see no point in continuing with you.

Unlike you, I don't pompously proclaim what is or is not about "ultimately reality",--Reality with the big R,-- we don't know and can't know, all we have are "maps" which for the most part appear to be consistent and that we can dynamically update them in a robust way,--so far it seems.

I think philosophical categories such as "matter" are pretty meaningless as absolutes. These absolutist understandings are based on a static picture of reality.But new discoveries revise their meanings even though many philosophers still pretend otherwise. Since their meanings are revised based on new data and ever changing scientific pictures of reality, I see no point in dwelling on ontological questions such as whether "dualism" makes sense. I don't even know if there is any content to words like "dualism".

and your own rather fallacious philosophical claims - that really gives you away...

Such as?

Philosophy, once again, is purely methodological and logical inquiry - as strict as mathematics.

Then how come even philosophers cannot agree with each other on "methodology"? Is Post Modernism a methodlogy as well? Last I check Post Modernists are quite powerful in some philosophy departments.

Sadly, you make very bad philosophical judgements - for example about how our models relate to that which they ought to describe, what we can know about this, and what this means ontologically...

Well then show me wrong. All I hear from you is really huffing and puffing appealing to authorities whom I don't recognize.

I put forth arguments for my position. I didn't see any logical rebuttal which I haven't made a counter response. The bottomline is you are committed to a set of ontological prejudice even whose meanings are not very clear.

fallacies here and there and no conclusive arguments anywhere -

Are you bluffing again?

you may be a brilliant mathematician, and you clearly are an intelligent person - but in the application of reason to such problems, you not only fail as epically as Dianelos, you additionally have the nerve to decry the strict, scientific inquiry that is philosophy, yet of which you yourself employ but a caricature.

That sounds like what theologians say about Richard Dawkins.

Yes, mathematics in physics is simply a language trying to describe something...

Yes, better than languages that describe nothing such as ontology and metaphsyics.

We all "do" ontology...

Yes, informally as a part of a general thinking process. It doesn't justify it being a specialized subject as there isn't much more that is worthy beyond what people do informally. Nor does the fact that we all "do ontology" informally requires us to commit to a formal ontological position.

I will not engage with you anymore, at least on this topic. I don't want to poison the atmosphere here.

To the rest, especially Steve,

My apologies. I just can't let this stands unanswered.

241. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284944 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 9:12 am

Steve

Not really, no, as those particles appear in physical experiments. Billions of neutrinos pass through you each second, and have physical effects. They aren't fictions.

I was talking about classical electrodynamics in order to describe how fields were originally introduced.

In particle physics, interactions are supposedly mediated by virtual particls, which are field excitations.

I am more of a realist than that, and I think most scientists are too. We don't interpret the trails just in order to make predictions and account for results. We try to interpret the trails to see if we can get some feel for what is actually going on. We may not achieve that, but I think that is the intention of most physicists.

I am realist in the same sense. My point is that there is no justification to be selective about your "realism". The same criteria should apply.

I would say yes (to the question of whether spacetime has spatial temporal existence).

How so? What are the coordinates of spacetime? How does it become an event inside of itself? Is it what philosopher call category confusion? Please clarify.

Break over (intenet off)

242. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284935 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 8:59 am

Epeesist

I didn't insist on dealing with particles on a purely operationalist manner.

But steve argues that we should treat only "things that he can kick" as "real" to avoid the sin of reification and "Platonism". This is essentially an operationalist argument. I am pointing out "kicking" is not as "operationalist" as he thinks.

243. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284925 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 8:33 am

Steve

Actually, it is a very general term used by Vic Stenger to describe what we do to investigate physical reality. We sent out physical signals and wait for signals to come back.

And what exactly do we do?

We have access to raw data, like seeing a track in the cloud chamber, or observing redshift, or recording "clicks" on a giger counter. But these are phenonmenological data. They don't by themselves provide a description of nature, in fact not much of anything if you stay at the phenomenological level.

So does the track in the cloud chamber show a particle? Not really, that is our "model". What it shows is just a trail of liquid droplets. We interprete that to be the foot print of particles because this is a useful and coherent way to account for countless other experiments and it allows us to make predictions. NO MORE NO LESS. So the particle picture describes some aspect of Reality,-with the big R,-- It is a useful map, but it breaks down when you, say, consider the two slit experiment.

This is just the kind of thing I am talking about. To assume that Platonism can do this is to make a category mistake that would not have been made with an understanding of the philosophical implications.

Who gives a shit about philosophical implications?
:)

BTW, Platonism is your word, not mine.

My point is simple, I don't commit to any ontological dogma.

There are useful ways of thinking about the world, they allow us to make coherent descriptions that account for observe data and make predictions.

Unless you think it is all by accident that our approach works, otherwise it seems reasonable to think that our "maps" built from the bricks of mathematical laws and "objects" do capture some aspects of reality.

Mathematical laws and entities are therefore "real" in the sense that they provide a useful map of Reality (with big R) to which we have no direct access. They are "real" just as spacetime, particles, waves, no more, no less.

Moreover, this is all that we can ask for. Any additional criteria for "reality" is uncalled for and unjustified, these only reflect philosophical prejudice and a lack of imagination.

How can you "kick"(sorry) a number with a photon or proton?

There are two ways to answer your rhetorical question

1) Your question doesn't make any more sense than asking how does the colour red eat a rabit even though both colour red and rabit are "real". "Kicking" is not the way numbers and protons interact.

However, protons obey mathematically precise laws. These laws manifest themselves in physics.

2) What is a proton? It is completely "described" by its wave function and the only way so far as we know to treat the pronton in settings such as the two slit experiment is to actually treating it as a (complex) wave The wave is more than just a "description" of a ping pong ball. Now is a wave function "real"?

I am going to follow Mitchell's good advice, and say that I haven't a clue what you mean by "an independent status". Fictions can't lift themselves by their own bootstraps to become reality. What you seem to be doing here is using a form of ontological argument for the reality of fields.

It is not "my argument". This is what physics does.

Look up any introductory text book and see how they define electromagnetic fields. Fields (like potential energy) are introduced as an alternative discription for "action at a distance". They are "matematical fictions" to account for things such as missing momenta and energy in complicated interacting particles.

Now there is no reason why such a scheme of mathematical book keeping would work. But it does!
And what is more, it affords simple discriptions for complicated actions between particles. We can describe the behaviour of field relatively easily say using Maxwell's equations.

So it is reasonable to think no longer in terms of particles pushing and pulling but think in terms of fields directly. It is also resonable to assume that they do correspond to something in Reality even though they were introduced as mathematical fictions.

In field theories, the fields are treated as more basic than particles, the particles are now excitations of fields, like notes you play on a guitar strings. So the fields become more "real" than the particles.

I was hoping that I didn't have to explain it in such great length. I understand Mitchell might have problems understanding my terse statement, but I assume you know all these already.

No. Space and time exist but are relative measures. They can be defined in terms of each other.

I have no clue what that means. Does spacetime itself have spatial and temporal existence or not? If not then by your definition it doesn't exist. If spacetime doesn't exist what is the justification of defining existence based on a non existence measure?

244. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284910 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 7:27 am

Well program is running so I am peeking in before I step out to get coffee and donut.

Steve

Without ontology, we can be misled into thinking that certain things can have existence - i.e. Platonism.

And the problem would be? If "Platonism" suggests a useful program to discover new physics why not?

And I have no idea what is "dualism" as the definitions of philosophical categories such as "matter" are not static, we now include fields as "matter". Fields was invented as a "mathematical fiction" to describe actions at a distance. But it is such a useful description that it has achieved an independent status.

All philosophical navel gazings are mainly just nitpicking over language. There has never been a case where playing this game has led to any new discovery or deepening of our undestanding about the world.

P.S. "Exist" is a loaded word. If you define "existence" as having spatial temporal existence, then by definition space and time don't exist!

245. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284898 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 6:54 am

One last parting shot before turning off internet (well I'm an addict)

This arises in the discussion of "fields". When I kick something, I don't kick the mathematical object. I kick something that is represented by the mathematical object. But it still makes sense to talk of "kicking" a "field", just like it makes sense to say I am standing in "Britain", even though "Britain" is really just a (changeable) label.

"Kicking" something is a "middle world" concept as I explained before. Your keep repeating this to my mind is just a way to score cheap debating point by appealing to "common sense" in a unjustiable way. I am sure you know that 20th century physics has turned common sense upside down, along with the philosophical categories created from those common sense notions

I am afraid that, to me, Bonzai's position seems to be a horribly confused combination of dualism and reification, with no clear understanding of what "exists" or "reality" means (I held a similar position years ago). However, those are matters for the dreaded "philosophy"!

On the contrary, I think my approach is simple and consistent with minimal ontological commitment and baggage. It may appear confusing to you perhaps because you allow your mind to be cluttered by philosophical jargons. I don't care for quasi theological debates on "-isms", I always look for the most direct approach.

246. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284894 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 6:41 am

Steve

Don't be a jerk. You need not post statements like this. It adds nothing to your argument.

Ok, I am sorry. I didn't mean to be snarky, I just got frustrated when you appeared to respond after reading just the first sentence in every paragraph.

Now to clarify things further (hopefully), let me persue an analogy. In mathematics you can describe a manifold (higher dimensional analogues to surfaces) in two ways.

In one way you specify a topological space first, and then define a patch work of coordinate systems on the underlying space.

Alternatively, you start with a collections of coordinate systems with some consistency and matching conditions , without a priori mentioning the underlying space, you then show that these matching conditions allow you to define a topological space.

The way science works is a bit like the second way rather than the first. The coordinate charts correspond to our "maps", the topological space is "Reality" out there. We don't have a priori information of the underlying topological space except (hopefully) a consistent patchwork of maps.

Mitchell,

I will try to elaborate my points when I get around to. Meanwhile back to number crunching. I will disable the internet to avoid further distractions. :)

247. Church Preaches The Music Of Beethoven

Comment #284888 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 6:14 am

I used to live almost right on broadview and danforth. Now I am at the Kensington Market where all the cool people, hippies and drug addicts hang out. :)

248. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284885 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 6:06 am

Steve,

You apparently are not really reading what I wrote except for fragments of sentences.

Otherwise how do you explain a rejoinder to "everything is a map" with "reality is more than that"?

I explained in detail what I meant by "everything is a map" and I emphatically didn't deny there is more.

I am afraid you need to take sometimes to read what others have to say before you respond. I am always amazed by the speed you post reponses, now I know why.

EDIT

That doesn't work. If we have maps that work, and maps that don't, then it is reasonable to assume there is something independent of the maps.

See, that is exactly what I meant.

Did I ever say all maps work equally well? Have I ever said I am a post modernists? I did talk about what my criteria for a map to reality should satisfy: consistency, stability, allowing us to make predictions and the robustness of allowing us to update consistenly with new data.

Sorry, I don't think you are reading, you are only listening to echoes in your mind.

249. Church Preaches The Music Of Beethoven

Comment #284884 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 6:03 am

Frankus

I will be working today. My office is right on the parade route. It is glorious outside. Do you live in Toronto?

250. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284882 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 5:57 am

Steve

Yes. We can definitely kick something, and as models of this thing which describe it as a field work well, we assume it is a field that we are kicking.

Well most of you is empty space. At the atomic level you are made of the same "ghostly" stuffs of QM. It seems tremendously naive to think that our "middle world" delusions should be the yard stick for reality.

No. That is not what "reification" means. You are again mixing up using mathematical models and assuming that mathematical objects themselves are real.

No. At a more mundane level it is "modeling", but as you probe deeper into the forefront of phyiscs, the "real" substrate of "stuffs" appear to have melted away. All you have left is some kind of mathematical skeleton. The boundary is a lot more diffuse than you think based on the picture of flying ping pong balls.

There is a phrase that covers this mistake: "confusing the map for the territory".

No I didn't. On the contrary, it is you who did.

I made two points

1) Everything is a map. If the map is "stable" and "robust" in the sense I described before, we ascribe "reality" to it in the sense that it is a map of "Reality" out there with a big R

Spacetime and particles are "maps" just as other mathematical entities, and they are all maps which respresent some aspects of "Reality" if we use the same criteria, rather than ad hoc criteria such as those you and Mphil adopt.

You are the one who confuses maps with the terrain because you speak of spacetime and particle as somehow more real than say, quantum potentials, field excitations and Lagraingians. You call the latter "models", I don't know on what base you make the distinction other than your "middle world" taste.

2)We have no direct access to "Reality", we can only access it through maps. Therefore it makes no sense to talk about "Reality" without a map unless you are a mystic.

Well gota go back to work. Will be back in two days,--or perhaps before.