Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-08-2015, 12:23 AM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(09-08-2015 12:09 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-08-2015 12:00 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Holy fuck, presuppose much?

You need to presuppose a whole lot more to get "intrinsic randomness".

No you don't.

Why presuppose 'intrinsic randomness', rather than take note that it's all we've observed?

Presupposing a body-less mind injecting randomness is trying to explain away a complicated answer with far more more convoluted and complicated answer, one that has even more assumptions and raises only further questions. Your presuppositions don't answer anything, they merely push any potential answer further away; thus rending your 'god did it' answer as necessarily less probably than even the alternative of 'intrinsic randomness' all things considered. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
09-08-2015, 12:28 AM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2015 12:38 AM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(09-08-2015 12:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(09-08-2015 12:09 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You need to presuppose a whole lot more to get "intrinsic randomness".

No you don't.

Why presuppose 'intrinsic randomness', rather than take note that it's all we've observed?

Presupposing a body-less mind injecting randomness is trying to explain away a complicated answer with an even more complicated answer, one that has even more assumptions and raises only further questions. Your presuppositions don't answer anything, they merely push any potential answer further away; thus rending your 'god did it' answer as necessarily less probably than even the alternative of 'intrinsic randomness' all things considered. Drinking Beverage

Because all that we observe is that effects have causes. Now when you see an effect with no cause, you can either assume the cause is hidden from us, the cause is non local, or that effects somehow have no cause. The latter is an utterly ridiculous notion. Bells Theorem tells us that hidden causes are not going to explain all the predictions of quantum mechanics. So that leaves us with two options. Non local causes or the ridiculous notion that some effects have no cause.


Effects with no cause is nonsensical so I reject that notion. If there is an effect then there is a cause. If the cause cannot be local then it must be non local. Non local causes would exist if God exists and maintains this world.

Its all logical and fits with my observations of the world.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2015, 12:37 AM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(09-08-2015 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-08-2015 12:23 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No you don't.

Why presuppose 'intrinsic randomness', rather than take note that it's all we've observed?

Presupposing a body-less mind injecting randomness is trying to explain away a complicated answer with an even more complicated answer, one that has even more assumptions and raises only further questions. Your presuppositions don't answer anything, they merely push any potential answer further away; thus rending your 'god did it' answer as necessarily less probably than even the alternative of 'intrinsic randomness' all things considered. Drinking Beverage

Because all that we observe is that effects have causes. Now when you see an effect with no cause, you can either assume the cause is non local or that effects somehow have no cause.....which is ludicrous when you think about it.

Effects with no cause is nonsensical so I reject that notion. If there is an effect then there is a cause. If the cause cannot be local then it must be non local.

Its all logical and fits with my observations of the world.

Except your proposed answer either pushes the problem further back (what caused your cause maker), or it doesn't answer it at all by committing the same problem (an un-caused causer). Ultimately you have no evidence in support of either, and thus proposing a 'random even causer' does nothing more than add an additional layer of obfuscation and presupposition while not actually answering anything. Thus it is less probable than any other possible answer that does not have the additional unnecessary assumptions you are making.

Q.E.D. bitch. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
09-08-2015, 12:38 AM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
*Holds up hand*

(09-08-2015 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  .... Now when you see an effect with no cause, you can either assume the cause is non local or that effects somehow have no cause.....which is ludicrous when you think about it.

But... I don't ever see effects with out cause.

Even the tangled mess that is left after a hurricane.. or tsunami... or earth quake.

The causes can all be worked out, down to the finest grain of sand or drop of water and it's all quite natural and explainable etc. Consider


(09-08-2015 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Effects with no cause is nonsensical so I reject that notion. If there is an effect then there is a cause. If the cause cannot be local then it must be non local.

Um... you're the only one positing that quantum effects are of "Something else making them happen the way they do"....

I'm happy with "I don't understand quantum anything and there are other, far smarter people working the folds of their brains to figure it out."

(09-08-2015 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Its all logical and fits with my observations of the world.

This is great. but at the moment you're in the position of Mushashi and seem unable to teach others on how to reach the same position. Sad

*Runs back to comfy chair and warm fire side* Blush
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2015, 12:41 AM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(09-08-2015 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(09-08-2015 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Because all that we observe is that effects have causes. Now when you see an effect with no cause, you can either assume the cause is non local or that effects somehow have no cause.....which is ludicrous when you think about it.

Effects with no cause is nonsensical so I reject that notion. If there is an effect then there is a cause. If the cause cannot be local then it must be non local.

Its all logical and fits with my observations of the world.

Except your proposed answer either pushes the problem further back (what caused your cause maker), or it doesn't answer it at all by committing the same problem (an un-caused causer). Ultimately you have no evidence in support of either, and thus proposing a 'random even causer' does nothing more than add an additional layer of obfuscation and presupposition while not actually answer anything. Thus it is less probable than any other possible answer that does not have the additional unnecessary assumptions you are making.

Q.E.D. bitch. Drinking Beverage

Right now I am not making any claims about the non local cause, only that it is more rational to believe that non local causes exist than it is to reject causality and just assume some effects are not caused.

Suck on that tit of rationality bitch.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2015, 12:44 AM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(09-08-2015 12:41 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-08-2015 12:37 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Except your proposed answer either pushes the problem further back (what caused your cause maker), or it doesn't answer it at all by committing the same problem (an un-caused causer). Ultimately you have no evidence in support of either, and thus proposing a 'random even causer' does nothing more than add an additional layer of obfuscation and presupposition while not actually answer anything. Thus it is less probable than any other possible answer that does not have the additional unnecessary assumptions you are making.

Q.E.D. bitch. Drinking Beverage

Right now I am not making any claims about the non local cause, only that it is more rational to believe that non local causes exist than it is to reject causality and just assume some effects are not caused.

Suck on that tit of rationality bitch.


You're assuming an 'either/or' proposition, instead of going with 'I don't know' you stupid fuck. There could well be a third option that nobody has yet considered or understands, your 'if not local, must be non-local' is making assumptions your ignorance can't cash. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
09-08-2015, 01:16 AM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(09-08-2015 12:09 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(09-08-2015 12:00 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Holy fuck, presuppose much?

You need to presuppose a whole lot more to get "intrinsic randomness".

Yeah, you need to make shit up in your own head and presuppose it is real.

You're not winning anyone over here mate.

I mean -45 rep after a couple of weeks?

You're like a mad fundie Jew smashing his head against the wailing wall and each time it hurts more you wail louder.

Complete delusional mental case.

And I do not accept your forgiveness.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2015, 05:11 AM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(08-08-2015 11:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(08-08-2015 06:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  Positing an explanation that itself requires even more explanation is not rational.

Atomic nuclei decay because they are unstable - the nuclear forces are not balanced. The nucleons are not static - they are jostling about. It is not surprising that some resulting configurations are so unstable that particles are emitted or the nucleus fractures. No hidden variables, gods, or pixies required.

Chas, I do agree that atomic decay probably has some local cause and therefore is no actually random. It may appear random to us because we are ignorant of certain facts of observable reality. However Bells theorem tells us that reality either has to it some intrinsic randomness(which makes no sense whatsoever) or the cause some effects is non-local. Assuming of course our reality is governed by laws quantum mechanics describes.

You seem to have latched on to Bell's Theorem as gospel. It is highly disputed in the physics community.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2015, 05:36 AM
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(09-08-2015 01:16 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I mean -45 rep after a couple of weeks?

This isn't our first rodeo with Blowme...he was just gone for a while. He earned that neg rep long before this episode.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
09-08-2015, 06:14 AM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2015 03:54 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Commentary on Peebo's and Heywood's Comfy Corner
(09-08-2015 12:28 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Because all that we observe is that effects have causes. Now when you see an effect with no cause, you can either assume the cause is hidden from us, the cause is non local, or that effects somehow have no cause. The latter is an utterly ridiculous notion....effects with no cause is nonsensical so I reject that notion. If there is an effect then there is a cause. If the cause cannot be local then it must be non local.

Its all logical and fits with my observations of the world.

This is so lame and totally illogical ... actually. As Dr. Sean Carroll (physicist from Cal Tech) pointed out to William Lane Craig, the prior assumption(s) is(are) invalid. The "conditions" are not present and operable that justifies this statement and conclusion concerning "causes. It's a "special pleading" argument (at best). The "utterly ridiculous" BS is simply Blowjob's ignorance, and lack of creativity and knowledge of Physics AND Logic.

The correct statement would be, "Sometimes, some effects are observed to have causes, in this location, in this already extant universe with the properties we see already operating locally, INSIDE this universe, given our limitations on what we can detect and observe". A hell of a lot of qualifiers these stupid theists leave off their bullshit so-called "logic".

Jebus forgives you, Blowme, for providing the forum an opportunity to shoot down your crap, yet again.










Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: