I think Dawkins has it wrong on agnosticism.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2012, 08:32 AM
RE: I think Dawkins has it wrong on agnosticism.
The fact that he coined terms like TAP and PAP makes me facepalm.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes germanyt's post
12-02-2012, 08:51 AM
RE: I think Dawkins has it wrong on agnosticism.
(11-02-2012 11:59 PM)impr0vise Wrote:  So, I just watched that video. Holy shit. I had no idea that there was any such theory being seriously compiled.

Interesting that he states we know the universe to be at least 10x larger than the observable horizon. That's an awful lot that we most probably will never be able to know - in our own technically observable dimensions, none the less.

He has also made the argument that addresses your earlier point about "...nothing can become so intelligent as to deduce independently that it WASN'T created by something more intelligent than itself.".
He has come to the point that he CAN deduce that and can demonstrate it mathematically. I'll have to find more for you in that.
Note for those who have never heard of Leonard Susskind before.
He has become famous for challenging and ultimately changing Stephan Hawking's position on whether or not information is ever completely destroyed.
Hawking finally did a 180 after a long and much heated debate.

It's all in your head, because there is no other place it could be.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2012, 10:18 AM
RE: I think Dawkins has it wrong on agnosticism.
(12-02-2012 08:51 AM)TalladegaTom Wrote:  Note for those who have never heard of Leonard Susskind before.
He has become famous for challenging and ultimately changing Stephan Hawking's position on whether or not information is ever completely destroyed.
Hawking finally did a 180 after a long and much heated debate.

Don't you just love scientists, they live to be proved wrong :-)
Hawking went into radio-silence to go off and do the maths. He emerged much later to make a very public announcement that he had been wrong. Science is a self-correcting process.

Compare that with this dude in dress who has said sorry for previously being sorry about his church's handling of its child abuse cases...

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/64489...se-scandal

Cheers
DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2012, 10:30 AM
RE: I think Dawkins has it wrong on agnosticism.
Ghost, I appreciate that the question of how our world came to be can have serious implications on how we live. But potential answers to this question can be supported or refuted by evidence.

It's true that what people arbitrarily believe sometimes takes a backseat to whether their beliefs are supported by evidence, but that doesn't mean it should be that way. Smile

If something has an effect in our world, that is evidence for it. If something can on principle never be supported or refuted it cannot have an effect. If something doesn't affect us, it's irrelevant. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ben's post
12-02-2012, 10:32 AM
RE: I think Dawkins has it wrong on agnosticism.
(12-02-2012 10:18 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Compare that with this dude in dress ...

Some folks just wear their magic underwear on the outside.

It's all in your head, because there is no other place it could be.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TalladegaTom's post
12-02-2012, 02:41 PM
RE: I think Dawkins has it wrong on agnosticism.
(12-02-2012 08:51 AM)TalladegaTom Wrote:  He has also made the argument that addresses your earlier point about "...nothing can become so intelligent as to deduce independently that it WASN'T created by something more intelligent than itself.".
He has come to the point that he CAN deduce that and can demonstrate it mathematically. I'll have to find more for you in that.
Note for those who have never heard of Leonard Susskind before.
He has become famous for challenging and ultimately changing Stephan Hawking's position on whether or not information is ever completely destroyed.
Hawking finally did a 180 after a long and much heated debate.

I'm no physicist or mathematician, but I have a really hard time believing that you can deduce, via a strictly mathematical process, that your existence is owed to a Creator -- let alone determining whether that creator belongs to a supremely intelligent civilization that's gone through an evolutionary process to get there, or it is a supernatural god.

I really appreciate your introducing me to the concept. I find it insanely intriguing. Any other videos or books you could recommend?


(11-02-2012 11:06 PM)Ben Wrote:  How can an idea such that neither evidence for nor evidence against it can ever be produced possibly be relevant to our world?

That's exactly my point.

It can only be relevant for those who believe it to be true. For the rest of us who don't believe it, it isn't a matter to be determined one way or the other since there can't be any reliable scientific evidence for or against it.

"Fanatic ethnic or religious or national identifications are a little difficult to support when we see our planet as a fragile blue crescent fading to become an inconspicuous point of light against the bastion and citadel of the stars." - Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2012, 02:50 PM
RE: I think Dawkins has it wrong on agnosticism.
To Impr0vise...
Laurence Krauss is very accessible...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvWrI_oQ...ure=relmfu
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
12-02-2012, 08:24 PM
RE: I think Dawkins has it wrong on agnosticism.
Sup, Talladega?

So what's the answer? Can information be completely destroyed or not? Ya got me salivating for the answer Cool

Hey, Ben.

I appreciate your position. But it's an advertisement for the niftyness of evidence, not an empirical observation of how things function.

The point is, and this is a proven point, veracity is irrelevant. All that matters is the story itself. Should has nothing to do with it. Should is for salesmen. Sometimes stories include facts, sometimes they don't. That's simply what is.

Sup, Improvise?

Yeah, my spider sense is tingling on that one too.

Quote:It can only be relevant for those who believe it to be true. For the rest of us who don't believe it, it isn't a matter to be determined one way or the other since there can't be any reliable scientific evidence for or against it.

Well said.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
12-02-2012, 08:50 PM
RE: I think Dawkins has it wrong on agnosticism.
(12-02-2012 08:24 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Sup, Talladega?

So what's the answer? Can information be completely destroyed or not? Ya got me salivating for the answer Cool

No. You can scramble the snot out of it, but apparently it is not destroyed even in a black hole.
I'll link you to an interesting thing to read here, and will include some snippets.

"...Susskind’s quest to prove Hawking wrong about the destruction of information in black holes results in two major theories: Black Hole Complementarity and the Holographic Principle. ... Black Hole Complementarity states that what one observes while inside a black hole is different from what one observes outside the same black hole. ... Holographic Principle states that “everything inside a region of space can be described by bits of information restricted to the boundary."

I'm glad you are interested.
This talk, The Black Hole War from Leonard Susskind will tell the tale.

It's all in your head, because there is no other place it could be.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TalladegaTom's post
12-02-2012, 09:38 PM
RE: I think Dawkins has it wrong on agnosticism.
Guys!
You are talking about this like it's something recently understood.

Black HOLY Complementarity and the HOLYgraphic Principle have been around for hundreds of years. Here is the irrefutable evidence...

“They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.” Jude Chapter 1 verse 13
“When the stars are put out.” Qur'an Chapter 78 Verse 8
“The heavens will split asunder, for that day, it will be frail.” Qur'an Chapter 69 Verse 16

(who needs maths and science when you have revelation and a little backward engineering?)

Cheers
DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: