dagblog - Comments for "Wild theories and empty seats at CPAC-style conference for the MAGA set"

As they say, String Theory is

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 09:00:00 +0000

In reply to

As they say, String Theory is a field unburdened by ever having to have made a prediction, much less a right one.
I thought my little bit of gibberish was simpler - Occam would approve - it didn't require new fields of physics nor invented deities, and could be understood by anyone who's used a magnet.

oldenGoldenDecoy — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 08:42:15 +0000

In reply to Consciousness or "life" could

This fellow

He had good reason to delve into this.

I mean, he went poof 4 years after he wrote it.

The quantum theory of reincarnation

by Roger Ebert

July 25, 2009

If you want to see fear in the eyes of a quantum physicist, mention the word "measurement." -- Folk saying

Is reincarnation possible from a scientific, rationalist point of view? For my purposes today I'm going to argue that it is. We will never, however, be aware of it, and indeed "we," as we like to think of ourselves, will be completely out of the picture. I'm going to approach the problem from the point of view of quantum mechanics--a field about which I understand almost nothing, although discussing it permits others to assume I have gone mad.

Let's begin, for the sake of argument, by saying that when you get right down to the bottom--under the turtles--everything, and I mean Everything, consists of quantum particles. These particles can as well be in one place as another, even at the same time. Read on if you wish-->>

~OGD~

Consciousness or "life" could

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 06:21:00 +0000

In reply to That doesn't mean its likely

Consciousness or "life" could be a unit of electromagnetic or gravitational or other type of energy. (we finally measured gravitational waves the last 2 years, despite having theorized about them for some time).

While we could propose that energy floating around, we could also posit a mother having certain packet of energy that she automatically shares with her embryo. To do this she might combine her own energy with available free-floating energy as a type of energy seed-and-egg duo. The successful linking of internal and external energy might be the point of new embryo's life the way fertilization marks physical conception. At death this energy can be released to float elsewhere, maintaining free-floating E-M memory and cognition until attracted by another new developing embryo. This could be species neutral, or have an energy genetic signature that fuses the same type of energy/control pattern system as befits that species or genus or higher order.

I made this up in 5 minutes, but I can think of ways to test in nature, simulate in a lab, etc. - imperfectly od course, but not randomly or unknowably. We might posit what a free-floating energy gamete would physically entail, and try to detect these. We could try to measure energy changes in the embryo, say during lab cloning. We could try to define the supposed mechanism of signapping (a typo that could mean signalling + kidnapping) and attraction of a compatible energy system for bonding. We know more about complex electromagnetic fields for plants now that involves signalling that somehow attracts insects, so this idea isn't completely whacko, but that doesn't mean it's valid or likely or true.

If you say so but it looks to

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 05:53:03 +0000

In reply to I don't see how it helps to

If you say so but it looks to me that you are not giving a dictionary definition but just saying that it does no good to state what I stated from the beginning. I do not see any declaration that your definition of agnosticism means the belief that the nature and existence of god is not known or knowable but if that is what you now claim to believe then I am glad we have come to agree.

I don't see how it helps to

ocean-kat — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 05:29:32 +0000

In reply to I looked for the instance you

I don't see how it helps to state that agnosticism means the belief that the nature and existence of god is not known or knowable. by ocean-kat on Sat, 12/08/2018 - 3:36pm

I looked for the instance you

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 05:19:45 +0000

In reply to This is the second time you

I looked for the instance you claim where you gave either your or the dictionary’s definition of agnosticism. I couldn’t find it. How about you copy from the thread and paste it in your next reply, shouldn't’t take but a minute .

According to Niel deGgrasse Tyson the central difference between the nature of science and religion is that the claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith, and these are irreconcilable approaches to knowing. Because of this both are incompatible as currently practiced and the debate of compatibility or incompatibility will be eternal. Tyson is just one person but he is a respected scientist among many who agree.

There is a difference between a hypothesis being rejected and one being proven false. A hypothesis can be considered to be an educated guess. Whether the hypothesis is believed to be a good one worth investigating or is dismissed out of hand does not speak definitively to its ultimate correctness or falsity. I believe Darwin’s hypothesis was roundly rejected by most of the scientists of the day until evidence was gathered to substantiate it. Conversely, a hypothesis may be widely accepted and then proven false. According to the book Cadillac Desert, it was widely hypothesized in the 1800’s and believed by many that “rain would follow the plow”. That meant that as people populated the desert that moisture would follow and the desert would bloom. Hasn’t worked out so far.

Empirical evidence acquired by observation or experimentation is a central part of the scientific method. I know that much about how scientific inquiry works. Can you show me empirical evidence that god does not exist. Of course not. Science cannot work that way in a field of mystical belief. Of course not seeing evidence of his existence can lead you to believe, like I do, that he probably doesn’t exist but science, which requires evidence to establish a scientific “proof” does not, because it cannot, prove that god does not exist.

This is the second time you

ocean-kat — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 04:15:22 +0000

In reply to Agnosticism is a very

This is the second time you've accused me of not giving you "my" definition of agnostic after I gave you "my" definition of agnostic. Reread the thread and pay more attention. "My" definition of agnostic is the same as the dictionary definition of agnostic. I don't create personal definitions of words. I use the dictionary definition of words. I like language and the subtle differences of synonyms and am very careful in my word choices. I will on occasion discuss the connotation of words but when I do that I clearly state that.

I don't give a fuck what ever your personal definition of a word might be. Since there are dictionaries your personal definition is irrelevant and having them a sign of ignorance. One of the first things science has done in every field of inquiry was to create a vocabulary for that field with clear definitions of words. For example while the question, Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable may be a puzzle to someone without a knowledge of botany it has a very easy very clear scientific answer. At it's root the question is, Are you ignorant or knowledgeable of Botanical Science.

There are accepted rules of evidence in scientific inquiry. You are clearly ignorant of that protocol. In science as in any rational inquiry and even the legal system one does not need to prove every hypothesis wrong to reject it. In scientific inquiry one can simply show there is no evidence to support a hypothesis to dismiss someone's wild flights of fancy. This seems obvious to me and to anyone else working in the fields of science. That you don't know this merely illustrates your ignorance of the scientific method and rational thought and analysis.

There are no questions outside the purview of rational analysis and therefore science. Some questions are complex and difficult to answer, others simple and easy. If not for the pernicious influence of religion the question, Does god exist? is easily answered. There is no evidence for the existence of god therefore god does not exist. A complete and total lack of evidence is sufficient in science to dismiss any hypothesis. We can re-evaluate that answer if some evidence is produced.

Agnosticism is a very

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 02:21:01 +0000

In reply to You claim my examples are

Agnosticism is a very commonly used term nowadays by laymen and philosophers alike. I have had the intellectual honesty in this debate to define my terms and respond on point to your [religious?] reliance on science to answer a question completely out of the realm of science. Go back to my first comment. Why won't you give your definition of agnosticism and why you think my understanding of agnosticism cannot be justified since that is central to our different stands? I may be wrong but I am not "simply" wrong. Knowing that I might be wrong in denying the existence of god even though I am highly confident that the atheists are correct, as I said clearly a long time ago, is why I correctly call myself an agnostic. There is no need for another misplaced horse story.

You claim my examples are

ocean-kat — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 01:34:16 +0000

In reply to A complete and total lack of

You claim my examples are irrelevant but do not offer evidence as to why. The hypothesis that flying horses exists is exactly the same as the hypothesis that god exists. Your error is that you think the belief that god exists without any evidence is the same as the belief that god does not exist because there is no evidence. The former is irrational and faith based the latter is rational and evidence based. These are the type of distinctions science makes all the time. Making these determinations is what science does. There are innumerable hypothesis that can not disproved. Science does not remain agnostic about them. In science a complete lack of evidence of existence is considered evidentiary proof of non existence. You accept that lack of evidence as proof of the non existence of flying horses, the invisible hand of god pushing planets, the non existence of gremlins etc. but not as evidence of the existence of god. You are simply wrong. You misunderstand logic and the accepted rules of evidence in scientific inquiry.

That doesn't mean its likely

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 09 Dec 2018 00:48:46 +0000

In reply to I would put reincarnation in

That doesn't mean its likely or not - just a differnt category of knowability.

I agree about the different categories of what can be known, just like religious beliefs and science, but I would like to hear a theory about how reincarnation could exist that did not require a mystical, therefore unprovable, belief.