251. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284878 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 5:33 am

Steve,

Are you sure you can "kick" a field? It is quite suprising to hear that from someone who talks about QM so much. Are you actually still in the habit of thinking electrons are little ping pong balls even though you know it is not true at an intellectual level?

I will respond to Mphil in detail when I get around to it, probably in a couple of days since there are deallines to meet.

At this moment I just want to note that what he calls "reification" of mathematics has proven to be the most fruitful approach in modern physics, notwithstanding the noises from the philosophical quarter.

Another thing is getting rid of "infinities" in all its manifestations is not in conforming to Occam razor, exactly the opposite because by doing so you discard a most important organizing principle describing nature and simulatenoesly get rid of much or modern mathematics (the finitist project is a dead end as no one in active mathematics research would take it seriously) This indeed highlights the problem of treating mathematics as just a formal system of axioms and formal proofs,--it is self limiting and doesn't convey the true nature of mathematical discovery, it is no less absurd as treating physics as a formal system.

(It is true that formal infinities shouldn't turn up in the end of a caculation, but the "foot prints" of infinities are all over the place, without which you can't even talk about rational numbers, let alone reals)

I will elaborate on these themes in the next while.

252. Church Preaches The Music Of Beethoven

Comment #284877 by Bonzai on November 16, 2008 at 5:22 am

Hey Frankus

Is it reopened? I don't even know about that even though I live not far away. Oh well, I was watching Akira on TV last night when it was pouring outside. We should have met for coffee. :)

253. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283787 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 7:49 pm

Mphil

If you claim the existence of actual infinities in a universe with finite past and finite elements... evidence please.

Pi "exists". There you go. I don't define "existence" in the way you do. That is the whole point of this debate.

254. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283785 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 7:47 pm

I need to work. Shit. Now you guys deal with Dianelos :)

255. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283782 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Steve

How do you decide the 11th dimension is "real" but not a model? Just by fiat? Answering simply "yes" isn't good enough.

Yes. There is certainly something out there. Our description of them can be as excitations of fields.

There is "something" out there, but particles and waves and fields are all our descriptions and they corresponds to something real because the descriptions "work" in the sense I described before. All we have are descriptions, they are all as "real" or "unreal".

Your justifications in drawing distinctions and giving preferential status to some (particles) are based on nothing but philosophical prejudice. I think they should all be treated on an equal footing.

256. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283771 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Mphil

We know about certain relational properties of hypothetical idealized ("quantized") circles and lines and areas... nothing needs to actually be infinite in order to represent such a kind of aspect of a hypothetical infinitude. And all we ever do is represent relational aspects/properties of such hypothetical infinitues, for example when we state the PIr2 is the area of a hypothetical circle with the hypothetical radius of r. Any value for r, that is any number is again merely a symbol of which we know how it relates to other symbols according to rules we are aware of. And of pi, all we have are rules of how to use that symbol in operations with other symbols of the language of mathematics.

But that is like saying you don't need electromagnetic fields and you can simply talk about actions at a distance in some complicated ways.

IMO this reflects nothing but a phobia for infinities. It is artifical and irrational.

Again, the point you ought to realize is that mathematics is performing operations on symbols - a language like set-theory and first-order logic. The mathematics that is "real", that is present in the world is that which our minds do and which record, or which we have computers perform or simulated neural networks. These operations are all performed as changes of state of spatiotemporal systems like brains, calculators etc - and can be written down in various symbolic languages as finite expressions.

We have gone through this before. It is not how mathematics is actually done. It is a logician's caricature.

As Sylvester argued, mathematical ideas should not be petrified in a formalized axiomatic system, but should be instead considered as a flowing river. Mathematicians should always be willing to change the axioms, while preserving the informal idea. Arnold suggests this attitude points to the appealing dream of informal generalization of all of mathematics, where no single formal system is adequate.

257. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283750 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Reality isn't made of mathematics. Mathematics is what we use to model the relationships we observe in reality

So let's say string theory is right. Is the 10th dimension "real" or not?

How about virtual photons? particles (which are excitations of quantum fields and don't have a "fixed" identity,--consider Bose and Fermi statistics, say)

Other than raw data, everything is model.

But we ascribe "reality" to models if they exhibit sufficient robostness and consistency, in the sense that they provide a consistent description of the world, allow us to make predictions and can be updated in light of new evidence in such a way that they incorporate old theories as limiting cases(e.g Relativity reduces to Newtonian physics in the regime of weak gravity and v << c)

What we find out is that we simply cannot create a consistent and robust picture of the world without abstract mathematics, it is an essential ingredient of "reality", where "reality" is understood in the sense I used above.

258. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283740 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Steve

Because we can analyse the properties of functions and how they behave.

So tell me how throwing needles and expansion of arctan will give the same digits, without knowing anything about Pi.

No, they aren't. Fields are what are modelled by mathematical descriptions.

You can't see fields, all you can see are "particles" moving in some ways around other "particles" (let's not question how "real" particles are for the moment and adopt a naive pov)

Fields are mathematcal descriptions that works. But you can in principle talk about action at a distance instead, only that the description would be very tedious and ugly. So fields provide a simple effective description to nature that allow us to make description. Same for mathematics.

259. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283729 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 6:41 pm

Steve

It is no surprise that different procedures can come up the same digits.

But how do you prove that say, continued fractions and Monte Carlo algorithhms will give you the same digits if you don't assume there is the same underlying object to approximate?

Besides, how did you come up with the algorithms in the first place without assuming that there is some number "PI" to which the algoritms would converge?

For example, one way to get Pi would be (in theory) to use the series expansion of arctan. But how do you come up with that unless you already know the properties of Pi relating to trigonometric functions? It is not just a string of digit, it is defined by trigonometric integrals. You have to know that to find the algorithm.

You can't kick Pi. You are confusing the mathematical descriptions of reality with the physical reality itself. We have models of fields, but the models aren't the fields.

You can't kick "field" either. Most of you is made of empty space. Fields too are mathematical descriptions. How do you define a field?

260. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283719 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Mphil

All I am saying is that there is no reason to think that "Pi" is more or less "real" than say, electromagnetic field and spacetime. What are these if not "name of relational properties"?(assuming I understand you correctly)

That being the case I don't know why you (and steve) insist that something can only be "real" if it has spatial-temporal existence. Spacetime itself is a map,--or representation if you like.

In modern physics, spacetime itself is a mathematical construction. If you believe in string theory, how is 11 dimensional spacetime more "real" than the abstract mathematics that spawns it?

261. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283718 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 6:20 pm

Steve

So you need to assume the "function" pi exists. Otherwise how do you decide two apparently different algorithms will define the same "function"? E.g. you can generate the digits of Pi with some infinite series (say from the series expansion of some integral where Pi occurs) or by throwing needles (Buffon's needle,--a kind of Monte Carlo method)

There is no getting away that you need to assume some "existence" of Pi apart from the algorithms that generate its digit. Besides, where do you get these algorithms from without some mathematical theory about Pi?

262. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283709 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Steve

But, we can (as MPhil said) perform operations on the recipe to generate the digits, and effectively come up with new algorithms to generate different digits.

That presumes the algorithms lead to convergent squences, i.e. you need to assume the existence of a limit, which is Pi. Without that, there is no reason why iterating these algorithms (which can be done only finitely many times) will lead to anything other than a string of digits.

263. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283702 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 5:53 pm

Brain

I am socialist. I believe in solidarity. A more selfish reason is I really need to get back to work. :)

264. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283698 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 5:49 pm

Comment #283684 by Steve Zara

I shall hold my tongue on this for now. :)

All I would say for now is that according "reality" to mathematics does not validate Dianelos' position even though in his mind he thinks it does. Plato had no need for a Creator God. The Greek gods were secondary creatures.

This is all I am saying for now. We do close rank when faced with someone like Dianelos. :)

265. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283690 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Dianelos

I am not going to scroll back 200 posts to find your verbose diarrhea. If there is any content to supernaturalism you should be able to state it in less than 200 words(that is a rather generous limit)

266. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283683 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Prince Charles is a glorified welfare bum. Now some defender of faith.

267. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283681 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 5:32 pm

What the hell is "supernaturalism" anyway? That we assume there is magic because there are things current science doesn't explain? Well how does magic explain anything?

If we accept the non explanations that Dianelos offer, why not go magic all the way and be done with it? It is an intellectually lazy position that adds nothing, brings nothing to the table and close the door to investigation.

Science doesn't need any ontological baggage. We find out what we can honestly,--that is what "naturalism" really boils down to, the minimalist operating assumption to do science. It is not an ontological doctrine. Ontology is bullshit for the windbags.

268. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283607 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Mphil

An early term abortion is an act which deserves moral deliberation because the performance of it or non-performance makes the difference that there will be one life, one conscious, sentient sapient being fewer

Then why not push it one step further and treat contraception as a moral issue? The same argument applies, word for word.

269. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283602 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Re: the "virtuous woman"

Apparently she is a mental health nurse!! As the saying goes, the inmates are running the asylum.

270. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283570 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Mphil

that's not exactly what I meant. Keeping with the hiring-an-assassin analogy, this would be like hiring an assassin to kill the future firstborn child of a couple whom you know to be planning on having children..

I understand what you mean. The point still, is that you plan an act, which, at the point of enactment, would do harm to real people. In this case, the first born would be born in order that you can have it killed. It will not be a "potential" when the act unfolds, even though the unfolding will be in the future. I see no difference in this rather complex scenario from any attempt to commit crime which has yet been carried out.

However, there is a difference in an act, when carried out, only harm "potential" people.

I think you are confusing the planing or threat with the act.

In the scenario you describe, the act of giving an order to kill future first born is meant to be followed up by a second act, namely, the actually killing of the already born. Whereas, you are equating the order to an act that harms potential people, such as an early term abortion, which is already the final action,--there is no more follow up.

271. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283551 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Dianelos and DP have the same method of argument.

272. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283530 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Dianelos

Theism's assumption is that the overarching explanatory principle is the existence of a person who is perfect in all respects. Such a person would be perfectly intelligent and create the world using economy of thought and of action. Further such a person would be perfectly good and give us the cognitive capacity to understand the world, including the appropriate intuitions such as the principle of economy, i.e. Occam's

One fatal flaw. Theism explains squat, so it is not an "explanatory principle". It is simple, but also useless.

273. The Saudis' dubious interfaith agenda at the UN

Comment #283524 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 2:49 pm

beelzebub

Who was it who said
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing "?

Jack Nicholson?

274. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283517 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Mphil

The action to give the order (no matter how long before it is carried out) is morally non-permissible because it will affect someone negatively - future someones.

No, that is not the point.

It is like you pay a hit man to kill someone, it is illegal even though the hitman hasn't really carried out the act (the hitman may be an undercover cop so in that case the hit will never be carried out). This is because it is intended a s a criminal act against someone who already exists, even though the enactment of the act is in the future. (of course the crime is considered more serious if the hit has actually been carried out, this is the difference between attempted murder and murder 1)

On the other hand, from what I gathered by only skimping through the posts, Mitchell is talking about acts, when enacted, would only harm "potential" people.

So the difference is "plan to carry out acts that will to do real harm, when enacted" v.s "real acts that harm only "potential" when carried out" The two are different.

275. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283488 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Mphil

Is it immoral to (as it happens in the bible) order someone to kill the firstborn children of the next generation of a certain village? They aren't actual people, but we know that the future will include such firstborn children in that village.

That is an easy one. It is certainly immoral because it is a command to kill someone already exist, even though its fulfilment is in the future. The existence of the first born children is a certainty when the order is carried out. The evil intent is therefore beyond dispute.

276. The Saudis' dubious interfaith agenda at the UN

Comment #283459 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Goldy

And I am sure the Chinese would accept oil and the Saudis would accept money under the clear understanding that Wahab stays in Arabia and Chinese Muslims stay in China (of course, this can have a large wiggel factor)

Right. My question is why can't we reach a similar understanding with them,--and I am sure we will be a lot more generous than the Chinese on religious freedom.

277. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283452 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 1:40 pm

361. Comment #283449 by Oystein Elgaroy

Agreed.

278. Richard Dawkins: An Exclusive Profile

Comment #283447 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Vanpastel

Richard's voice is like a lullaby, it gives me a kind of soothing feeling that I very much like.

Hmm.. that is embarassing.

279. The Saudis' dubious interfaith agenda at the UN

Comment #283445 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Goldy

Who else would they prefer to sell it to? The Chinese ban all Wahabis, peroid.

280. The Saudis' dubious interfaith agenda at the UN

Comment #283433 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Well why the fuck is anyone even listening to these Saudi morons when they talk about 'religious tolerance' for themselves, but won't extend it to anyone else?

Oil would be the easy answer.

But what I don't understand is why do we need to play nice with these morons beyond business transactions. It is not like they can drink their oil. They have to sell and don't forget they buy everything else from the developed countries because they don't know how to build anything.

281. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283428 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Comment #283403 by Oystein Elgaroy

That is very different from saying we take the multiverse as default because it is "simpler".

282. The Saudis' dubious interfaith agenda at the UN

Comment #283424 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Who will be attending the meeting? Is there anyway to voice our disapproval?

283. Proposition 8 made me quit the Mormon church

Comment #283399 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Ian Bamlett

She is a woman.

284. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283326 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Steve

Not at all, but it means that the idea of a multiverse is a sensible default model of reality.

It would be in the absence of data, all else being equal.. But we have data: we observe only one universe.

So I disagree that the multiverse should be taken as a default position, as you put it. It can only be accepted if it is the inevitable result of a broader theory with other testable consequences.

I think it is rather cheap to to justify it by appealing simply to Occam razor.

285. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #283321 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Carto

I think that is dispicable. No difference from cancelling art shows for fear of Muslim violence.

286. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283313 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Steve,

Just to clarify. Are you saying that it is "simpler" not to assume uniqueness because that is an added assumption?

287. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283303 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 11:51 am

I think the debate hinges on what should be considered a "moral" issue. I wouldn't chop down the last surviving oak tree (assuming the extinction of oak trees would not result in damaging the ecosystem in such a way to harm people) and would try my best to prevent others from doing so.

But is this "morality", or something else? (say aesthetics?)There is no reason why we can only make decision based on ethical considerations. I think there are ethically neutral questions that do require decisions.

EDIT: Changed elephants to oak tree to avoid debate on the ethics of killing animals.

288. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283298 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 11:43 am

Al

Multiverse may be simpler. Could you demonstrate that to me....

Actually, simplicity may also be the result of asking "simpler" questions (this is only one kind of "simplicity". I bring it up because it is rarely mentioned)

If our universe is just one member of a vast multiverse, then presumably people would simply stop asking questions which are specific to our universe and instead ponder over questions which may turn out to be "simpler".

For example, you, Al, is a complicated person with a lot of personal quirks and characteristics which are the result of your unique past. It would be very complicated to develop a theory about "you" in isolation. That will be the job of your biographer if you become rich and famous.

However, it is a lot simpler in comparison to develop a general model about how people may behave. This is psychology. In this picture we are talking about the generic person and statistics. The insights gain through this approach can tell us a lot about you by treating you as just a "general" person. This yields a simpler picture at the cost of not asking certain question pertaining to you in particular.

Another example in geophysics. It studies the earth, a very particular system. It is complicated and multi-disciplinary. It often involves rather crude approximations. The answers it provides may require a lot of qualifications. By comparison cosmology is "simple" because it seeks general laws.

So I think one source of simplicity is the result of trade off. In a broader framework it is more natural to ask some general questions rather than specific ones, even though often the specific questions may still be interesting in their own right, say geology.

289. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283287 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 11:16 am

Al is a positivist. :)

290. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283183 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 8:44 am

Mphil

Your response reflects your position that (if I may be allowed to analyse your reponse) you do accept that the potential is not completely morally unimportant, but that it's rarity and frequency, ie other circumstances determines its "value" in the "moral equation".

I think there are two issues here. One is relating to abortion, the other is not.

In the context relating to abortion, the issue is whether a potential to become a person should be conflated with being a person.

The other point you brought up with your example of abiogensis really has no particular relationship to abortion or morality. The point seems to be that it would be a colossal missed opportunity to terminate a process which bears great potential when this only happens very rarely.

The same consideration can be extended to other things which may not be as rare, but may require tremendous effort and commitment to bring about. For example, your academic work. Suppose for some reason you are momentarily burn out and feel like quiting. This would be very unfortunate because you have invested so much time and energy in your project. Most people would advise you to think it over instead of just throwing it away, but that has nothing to do with morality.

I think your using abiogensis as an analogy for abortion conflated these two points.

A scenario with a similar flavour would be an infertile couple who have gone through great length and spent mega dollars to finally get the wife preganant, but she decides not to go through with it and has an abortion after a week. This is a decision that the couple would likely come to regrete after all the money and efforts, but it doesn't make the abortion more or less moral.

291. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283162 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 8:05 am

h4d

but I read him say on one thread that he doesn't much like women even as friends.

Not to put words in his mouth, but if I recall correctly he was talking about his anxiety around women. I doubt that it was a confession of misogyny.

292. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #283152 by Bonzai on November 13, 2008 at 7:53 am

Mphil

Would it be morally commendable, permissible or forbidden to terminate the abiogenesis - not actually destroying a full and diverse biosphere including intelligent life, but that which we know to a relatively high probability will turn into such? I don't think we would say that it is completely morally neutral.

Would it change the moral caculus if this abiogenesis process is as common and frequent as say, pragnancy?

I think your analogy appeals to the emotion simply because we think of abiogenesis as such a rare and therefore precious event so that if it is ever terminated the chance of it being observed again on the same planet is very slim.

293. Gay Marriage Outlawed in California

Comment #282923 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Elton John is OK with prop 8.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081112.wibbitson13/BNStory/International/home

He has a right to his opinions but it is damaging and irresponsible for him to state it publiclly just when there is a broad coalition to challenge the proposition.

294. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282918 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Brian

I never pegged Steve Zara .

WTF??!!

Opps I am channeling kkelly again. sorry.

295. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282905 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 9:31 pm

I know, I was joking. But conservatives are stupid. :)

296. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282902 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Titania

Brains of Liberals, Conservatives May Work Differently

Conservatives are stupid. You call that news? Shame on you. :)

297. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #282892 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 9:13 pm

cerebate #151

Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse to throw up these ridiculous points? Or are you trying to waste my time?

The point is whehther the fetous is a biologically "complete package" to survive and grow. What is unclear about that? You may err a little bit this way or that way so there may be a margin of safety, but there is no excuse to confuse a three week old fetous kept alive in a jar and a baby delivered by c-section or a person needing dialysis to survive.

I am wondering what is your agenda here.

298. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #282888 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 9:02 pm

Brian

I think more than a few philosophers have pointed out that it is more ethical to sacrifice a 6 month old baby, for example, than a healthy teenager who knows what he/she is about to loose (life) and can understand that suffering

Reminds me of this film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Night_(film)

The sun was about to explode. Everything was about to end.

Some old folks were watching TV, lamenting the impending doom. One old woman said, "They always talk about the children, what about the children? Have they invested 80 years in their lives? Have they ever tasted love, friendship, happiness and dispair? No, they haven't, they have nothing to lose.." (I am recalling from memory, this is the jist of it)

299. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #282877 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 8:52 pm

cerebate

Even born babies cant survive on their own

Most babies don't need to be hooked up to a life support system. Of course you need to feed the baby, but that is not what most sane people would call "being artificially kept alive".

You are confusing biological viability and survival as a sociological concept.

From a sociological perspective, even most adults cannot survive on his or her own in some barren island,--unless you are a extreme Libetarian such as Darwin's Pitbull

300. Catholic bishops warn Obama they'll fight on abortion: Statement to focus on 'opposing evil'

Comment #282870 by Bonzai on November 12, 2008 at 8:47 pm

I use XP and Opera.