| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Greg" |
| Date: |
02 Feb 2007 07:04:23 PM |
| Object: |
reversal of physics |
Imagine time reversed, then all of the present is either information
that was there already in the universe and / or part of the framework
(cause and effect). It may or may not be jumbled beyond all
recognition, so what ? Why do theists attach such importance to
this ? What is the Atheist argument against this stance ?
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: reversal of physics |
14 Feb 2007 08:20:26 PM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2007 17:04:23 -0800, "Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
alt.atheism
Imagine time reversed, then all of the present is either information
that was there already in the universe and / or part of the framework
(cause and effect). It may or may not be jumbled beyond all
recognition, so what ? Why do theists attach such importance to
this ? What is the Atheist argument against this stance ?
What dressing would you like on your assinine word salad?
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: reversal of physics |
02 Feb 2007 08:48:26 PM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2007 17:04:23 -0800, "Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1170464663.605557.256480@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Imagine time reversed, then all of the present is either information
that was there already in the universe and / or part of the framework
(cause and effect). It may or may not be jumbled beyond all
recognition, so what ? Why do theists attach such importance to
this ? What is the Atheist argument against this stance ?
Come back when you have achieved the coherency of a 12 year old, OK?
Your blather makes no sense whatsoever.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: reversal of physics |
02 Feb 2007 07:24:28 PM |
|
|
On Feb 2, 7:04 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Imagine time reversed, then all of the present is either information
that was there already in the universe and / or part of the framework
(cause and effect). It may or may not be jumbled beyond all
recognition, so what ? Why do theists attach such importance to
this ? What is the Atheist argument against this stance ?
What are you talking about? What is it that theists attach importance
to? (Also, why have you capitalized 'atheist'?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg" |
|
| Title: Re: reversal of physics |
02 Feb 2007 07:41:50 PM |
|
|
On 3 Feb, 01:24, "Chris Johnson" <effig...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 2, 7:04 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Imagine time reversed, then all of the present is either information
that was there already in the universe and / or part of the framework
(cause and effect). It may or may not be jumbled beyond all
recognition, so what ? Why do theists attach such importance to
this ? What is the Atheist argument against this stance ?
What are you talking about?
What is it that theists attach importance
to?
Well some would claim that the state (the state of the universe now)
comes from what was then. Therefore "evolution" or anything else you
can see, was in some way pre-ordained.
(Also, why have you capitalized 'atheist'?)
Sorry, Universe should be capitilised, although I prefer the notion of
an observable universe contained within the Multiverse, itself
contained with the Universe, hmm, ok, so it is easier just to say
Universe and consider, symmetries as something else.
But this point is off topic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: reversal of physics |
02 Feb 2007 09:20:33 PM |
|
|
On Feb 2, 7:41 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 3 Feb, 01:24, "Chris Johnson" <effig...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 2, 7:04 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Imagine time reversed, then all of the present is either information
that was there already in the universe and / or part of the framework
(cause and effect). It may or may not be jumbled beyond all
recognition, so what ? Why do theists attach such importance to
this ? What is the Atheist argument against this stance ?
What are you talking about?
What is it that theists attach importance
to?
Well some would claim that the state (the state of the universe now)
comes from what was then.
That appears to be the case. If it were not, it would be an amazing
coincidence that I came back down everytime I jumped.
Therefore "evolution" or anything else you
can see, was in some way pre-ordained.
I suppose you could look at it that way. Just bear in mind that
quantum mechanics indicates that there is a randomness inherent in the
universe, so pre-ordained (in the sense of deterministic) is not quite
true. Also, calling something pre-ordained does not bring into
existence an ordainer.
(Also, why have you capitalized 'atheist'?)
Sorry, Universe should be capitilised,
Why?
although I prefer the notion of
an observable universe contained within the Multiverse,
If a multiverse is inherently unobservable, what does it mean for it
to exist? Is it anything more than philosophical speculation?
itself
contained with the Universe, hmm, ok, so it is easier just to say
Universe and consider, symmetries as something else.
But this point is off topic.
Agreed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "William Wingstedt" |
|
| Title: Re: reversal of physics |
03 Jun 2007 09:15:18 PM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2007 19:20:33 -0800, "Chris Johnson" <effigies@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Feb 2, 7:41 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 3 Feb, 01:24, "Chris Johnson" <effig...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 2, 7:04 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Imagine time reversed, then all of the present is either information
that was there already in the universe and / or part of the framework
(cause and effect). It may or may not be jumbled beyond all
recognition, so what ? Why do theists attach such importance to
this ? What is the Atheist argument against this stance ?
What are you talking about?
What is it that theists attach importance
to?
Well some would claim that the state (the state of the universe now)
comes from what was then.
That appears to be the case. If it were not, it would be an amazing
coincidence that I came back down everytime I jumped.
I think the amazing coincidence is that every time you jump, the
universe is changed because of it. One time you jump and land with
only a puff of dust emanating from underneath you, the next time, a
beetle lands beneath your feet and as you come down, you splatter it,
and the dust carries with it the scent of dead ladybug. Of course that
might not matter much, but the aphids that ladybug would've eaten are
not complaining and are free to distort the growing tips of Mrs.
Mitchell's roses (admittedly, the ladybugs wouldn't complain either
had they been eaten, unless of course, the universe allows eaten
ladybugs to still register their complaints.) The next time you jump,
for some reason, the universe reverts to its "plain old puff of dust"
mode.
Therefore "evolution" or anything else you
can see, was in some way pre-ordained.
I suppose you could look at it that way. Just bear in mind that
quantum mechanics indicates that there is a randomness inherent in the
universe, so pre-ordained (in the sense of deterministic) is not quite
true. Also, calling something pre-ordained does not bring into
existence an ordainer.
(Also, why have you capitalized 'atheist'?)
Sorry, Universe should be capitilised,
Why?
although I prefer the notion of
an observable universe contained within the Multiverse,
If a multiverse is inherently unobservable, what does it mean for it
to exist? Is it anything more than philosophical speculation?
itself
contained with the Universe, hmm, ok, so it is easier just to say
Universe and consider, symmetries as something else.
But this point is off topic.
Agreed.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg" |
|
| Title: Re: reversal of physics |
02 Feb 2007 10:06:43 PM |
|
|
On 3 Feb, 03:20, "Chris Johnson" <effig...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 2, 7:41 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 3 Feb, 01:24, "Chris Johnson" <effig...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 2, 7:04 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Imagine time reversed, then all of the present is either information
that was there already in the universe and / or part of the framework
(cause and effect). It may or may not be jumbled beyond all
recognition, so what ? Why do theists attach such importance to
this ? What is the Atheist argument against this stance ?
What are you talking about?
What is it that theists attach importance
to?
Well some would claim that the state (the state of the universe now)
comes from what was then.
That appears to be the case. If it were not, it would be an amazing
coincidence that I came back down everytime I jumped.
Therefore "evolution" or anything else you
can see, was in some way pre-ordained.
I suppose you could look at it that way. Just bear in mind that
quantum mechanics indicates that there is a randomness inherent in the
universe,
As you know ? Randomness is not a term to take lightly, we cannot
"create" pure randomness in a trivial way, although no doubt a sample
and hold circuit will produce alot.
What do mean by random ? Do you mean its position is unsure ? That
is to be expected, they are particles.
Personally I don't believe that something a simple as an electron is
exact rather that, it is a problem of scale, it does not make sense to
expand something so small and expect it to be a specific way. It is
probably better to think of some aspects of small physical particles
as more like snowflakes.
Even so, so what ? It would be natural to expect the variations in
these particles to average out at a larger scale (through damping.)
All well and good, but there is also sensitive dependence upon initial
conditions.
so pre-ordained (in the sense of deterministic) is not quite
true. Also, calling something pre-ordained does not bring into
existence an ordainer.
An interesting point.
(Also, why have you capitalized 'atheist'?)
Sorry, Universe should be capitilised,
Why?
I'm not sure see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization
I think because it is a proper noun, there is only one.
although I prefer the notion of
an observable universe contained within the Multiverse,
If a multiverse is inherently unobservable, what does it mean for it
to exist? Is it anything more than philosophical speculation?
AFAIK:
"Yes, it is" is the simple and purile answer to that. Because of
symmetry and the inherent inconsistencies in any axiomatic system we
know that to be true. This is the basic question of what is objective
reality and the simple answer to that is "the closure of all
observable and consistent symmetric sets." (the sets / elements are
TOEs) In other words our reality exists close to a "perfect" Universe
but is never exactly there. I guess that is why modern Physics is
becoming increasingly hard to learn.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: reversal of physics |
03 Feb 2007 04:05:11 AM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2007 20:06:43 -0800, "Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1170475603.724658.308270@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
On 3 Feb, 03:20, "Chris Johnson" <effig...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 2, 7:41 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On 3 Feb, 01:24, "Chris Johnson" <effig...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 2, 7:04 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Imagine time reversed, then all of the present is either information
that was there already in the universe and / or part of the framework
(cause and effect). It may or may not be jumbled beyond all
recognition, so what ? Why do theists attach such importance to
this ? What is the Atheist argument against this stance ?
What are you talking about?
What is it that theists attach importance
to?
Well some would claim that the state (the state of the universe now)
comes from what was then.
That appears to be the case. If it were not, it would be an amazing
coincidence that I came back down everytime I jumped.
Therefore "evolution" or anything else you
can see, was in some way pre-ordained.
I suppose you could look at it that way. Just bear in mind that
quantum mechanics indicates that there is a randomness inherent in the
universe,
As you know ? Randomness is not a term to take lightly, we cannot
"create" pure randomness in a trivial way, although no doubt a sample
and hold circuit will produce alot.
What do mean by random ? Do you mean its position is unsure ? That
is to be expected, they are particles.
Personally I don't believe that something a simple as an electron is
exact rather that, it is a problem of scale, it does not make sense to
expand something so small and expect it to be a specific way. It is
probably better to think of some aspects of small physical particles
as more like snowflakes.
Even so, so what ? It would be natural to expect the variations in
these particles to average out at a larger scale (through damping.)
All well and good, but there is also sensitive dependence upon initial
conditions.
so pre-ordained (in the sense of deterministic) is not quite
true. Also, calling something pre-ordained does not bring into
existence an ordainer.
An interesting point.
(Also, why have you capitalized 'atheist'?)
Sorry, Universe should be capitilised,
Why?
I'm not sure see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalization
I think because it is a proper noun, there is only one.
although I prefer the notion of
an observable universe contained within the Multiverse,
If a multiverse is inherently unobservable, what does it mean for it
to exist? Is it anything more than philosophical speculation?
AFAIK:
"Yes, it is" is the simple and purile answer to that. Because of
symmetry and the inherent inconsistencies in any axiomatic system we
know that to be true. This is the basic question of what is objective
reality and the simple answer to that is "the closure of all
observable and consistent symmetric sets." (the sets / elements are
TOEs) In other words our reality exists close to a "perfect" Universe
but is never exactly there. I guess that is why modern Physics is
becoming increasingly hard to learn.
This wanker just screams: "I'M A TROLL!!"
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg" |
|
| Title: Re: reversal of physics |
06 Feb 2007 12:21:31 PM |
|
|
Mike Gray has the intellectual depth of a lemur.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: reversal of physics |
06 Feb 2007 01:51:19 PM |
|
|
"Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1170786091.326554.152650@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Mike Gray has the intellectual depth of a lemur.
That's nice. Feel better now?
Oh and PLONK
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: reversal of physics |
14 Feb 2007 08:22:37 PM |
|
|
On 6 Feb 2007 10:21:31 -0800, "Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
alt.atheism
Mike Gray has the intellectual depth of a lemur.
Which beats the ***** out of you, wankstain.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: reversal of physics |
06 Feb 2007 05:26:57 PM |
|
|
On 6 Feb 2007 10:21:31 -0800, "Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1170786091.326554.152650@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
Mike Gray has the intellectual depth of a lemur.
How old are you?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: reversal of physics |
14 Feb 2007 08:23:06 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 09:56:57 +1030, Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On 6 Feb 2007 10:21:31 -0800, "Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1170786091.326554.152650@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>
Mike Gray has the intellectual depth of a lemur.
How old are you?
It's in negative numbers.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joshua Aaron" |
|
| Title: Re: reversal of physics |
02 Feb 2007 07:47:21 PM |
|
|
On Feb 2, 7:04 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Why do theists attach such importance to this ?
Lazy minds. It is easier to give up and believe in imaginary friends
or an other than human answer? I don't know why they attach such
importance. However, I believe, for us (atheists, agnostics,
humanists), it is the question which offers more intrigue and wonder.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg" |
|
| Title: Re: reversal of physics |
02 Feb 2007 08:09:07 PM |
|
|
On 3 Feb, 01:47, "Joshua Aaron" <tennessee...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 2, 7:04 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Why do theists attach such importance to this ?
Lazy minds. It is easier to give up and believe in imaginary friends
or an other than human answer? I don't know why they attach such
importance. However, I believe, for us (atheists, agnostics,
humanists), it is the question which offers more intrigue and wonder.
I'd never thought of that, I'd always thought of science as friendly
and religion as alien and removed, but you are right it is like
ultimately all truth is cold without human imagination. I'd generalise
and go so far as to say mammalian imagination, I think some mammals
have imagination, or at least some kind of realistic symmetry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: reversal of physics |
02 Feb 2007 08:49:08 PM |
|
|
On 2 Feb 2007 18:09:07 -0800, "Greg" <imutate@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
- Refer: <1170468547.128552.236630@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
On 3 Feb, 01:47, "Joshua Aaron" <tennessee...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 2, 7:04 pm, "Greg" <imut...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
Why do theists attach such importance to this ?
Lazy minds. It is easier to give up and believe in imaginary friends
or an other than human answer? I don't know why they attach such
importance. However, I believe, for us (atheists, agnostics,
humanists), it is the question which offers more intrigue and wonder.
I'd never thought of that, I'd always thought of science as friendly
and religion as alien and removed, but you are right it is like
ultimately all truth is cold without human imagination. I'd generalise
and go so far as to say mammalian imagination, I think some mammals
have imagination, or at least some kind of realistic symmetry.
How old are you?
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
