merrill@raja.DEC (Rick Merrill, Fonts Manager, Hardcopy Engineering, 3-3751) (05/14/85)
John Williams, Can you prove to anybody that you were not created yesterday at 12:01 along with the rest of the universe, fossil records, your so-called "memories" and everything else? That would be a pretty powerful creation wouldn't it! Looks like No instant of time Requires a Predecessor so one is forced to choose "creator" or "no creator" before beginning any examination of where we are at the moment. :-) Rick
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/18/85)
> John Williams, > Can you prove to anybody that you were not created yesterday at 12:01 > along with the rest of the universe, fossil records, your so-called "memories" > and everything else? That would be a pretty powerful creation wouldn't it! > Looks like No instant of time Requires a Predecessor so one is forced to > choose "creator" or "no creator" before beginning any examination of where > we are at the moment. :-) Rick Of course, there's this guy called Occam who has this great talking electric shaver that says: given two scenarios, start with the one with the fewest assumptions. You'll always find that the ones who choose the scenarios with more assumptions ALWAYS do so because they have some vested interest in wanting to believe in those assumptions. (Else they have been duped in some way.) -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (05/21/85)
["Those who refuse to go beyond fact rarely get as far as fact." --H. Jackson] > > John Williams, > > Can you prove to anybody that you were not created yesterday at > > 12:01 along with the rest of the universe, fossil records, your so-called > > "memories" and everything else? ... > > Rick > > Of course, there's this guy called Occam who has this great talking > electric shaver that says: given two scenarios, start with the one with the > fewest assumptions. Rick was talking about proof, not assumptions. (Can one prove anything about what already exists?) I really shouldn't be taking part in this discussion. I shan't be created till some time next week. ... -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (05/30/85)
>> > John Williams, >> > Can you prove to anybody that you were not created yesterday at >> > 12:01 along with the rest of the universe, fossil records, your so-called >> > "memories" and everything else? ... >> > Rick >> >> Of course, there's this guy called Occam who has this great talking >> electric shaver that says: given two scenarios, start with the one with the >> fewest assumptions. > >Rick was talking about proof, not assumptions. (Can one prove anything >about what already exists?) There are no proofs which do not start from assumptions (axioms). Occam's Razor is a fundamental principle of efficiency. By choosing the simplest model that does not contradict existing information, you will have the simplest logical structure, the fewest steps in your proofs, and the best chance of not making errors. People who have a good grasp on the handle of Occam's Razor produce better results, both aesthetically and operationally (i.e., things they build work, their theorems aren't later disproven, they do better in the stock market or Vegas, etc.). Of course John or anyone else cannot prove they weren't created yesterday. Once you have passed a certain level of philosophical sophistication, you stop asking that sort of question. Rather, you recognize that both models are consistent with our observed reality, but that the "God" model is kind of boring, whereas the inductive model is deeper and more demanding. Some people really like to solve puzzles, so they put a lot of effort into trying to figure out how the whole world as we observe it might have arisen from structurally simple origins tranformed by uniform rules. Other people don't, so they say "God did it". This reduces insomnia. (I will tell you one thing though; if I were God, I would think a lot more highly of those who didn't believe in me.) -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/09/85)
>/* bill@hpfcms.UUCP (bill) / 8:02 pm Jun 16, 1985 */ >>...but that the "God" model >>is kind of boring, whereas the inductive model is deeper and more demanding. >>Some people really like to solve puzzles, so they put a lot of effort into >>trying to figure out how the whole world as we observe it might have arisen >>from structurally simple origins tranformed by uniform rules. >>Other people don't, so they say "God did it". This reduces insomnia. >There you go again, Jim! The value, truthfulness, validity, and strength >of an argument is directly proportional to the amount of effort required >to formulate it. Talk about arrogance!!! This is the whole problem >between God and man - pride. "God" is a "boring" model - too simple, too >many questions answered (some by "We'll never know in this life."). The god model is not a simple solution, or a solution at all, because it leaves unanswered at least as many questions as it answers. That god created the world begs the question "Who created god?" I could come up with atheory that said tha god1 created th world and that god2 created god1. Furthermore, I could say that there is an infinite series of gods, god1, god2, . . ., godn, . . ., etc. This "theory" has as much merit as the monotheistic one, yet I suspect that you find it less appealing (correct me, of course, if I'm wrong). Why? >Perhaps God doesn't put much stock into these "deep" and "demanding" >theories, either. No. God uses a ouija board. >Perhaps He is intellectually stagnant too. He is. >Bill Gates Mike Sykora
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (06/11/85)
In article <1310012@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >>>Some people really like to solve puzzles, so they put a lot of effort into >>>trying to figure out how the whole world as we observe it might have arisen >>>from structurally simple origins tranformed by uniform rules. >>>Other people don't, so they say "God did it". This reduces insomnia. This is a silly argument, but someone had to fulfill the Barnum prophecy... >>There you go again, Jim! The value, truthfulness, validity, and strength >>of an argument is directly proportional to the amount of effort required >>to formulate it. Talk about arrogance!!! This is the whole problem >>between God and man - pride. "God" is a "boring" model - too simple, too >>many questions answered (some by "We'll never know in this life."). There might actually be some truth in this, but its chief "merit" was to draw the following response. >The god model is not a simple solution, or a solution at all, because >it leaves unanswered at least as many questions as it answers. That >god created the world begs the question "Who created god?" I could >come up with atheory that said tha god1 created th world and that god2 >created god1. Furthermore, I could say that there is an infinite series >of gods, god1, god2, . . ., godn, . . ., etc. This "theory" has as much >merit as the monotheistic one, yet I suspect that you find it less >appealing (correct me, of course, if I'm wrong). Why? It's a red herring, Mike, because one can simply "sum" all these together, and get One God, instead of an infinite series of angels. Moreover, the same argument works on natural law; it too can exist in infinite series. The fact that we would rather consider the whole series all at once can be considered sufficient reason to do the same with the infinite series of so-called Gods. I say so-called, because, by any standard other than creation, they don't fit into any but a strangely contrived definition of the divine. Not content with that, the two contenders felt the need for the following exchange: >> Perhaps God doesn't put much stock into these "deep" and "demanding" >> theories, either. >No. God uses a ouija board. >> Perhaps He is intellectually stagnant too. >He is. Mike, I suggest that your employment of an obsolete and threadbare argument against a god indicates that, among the housewares of philosophy, you make a nice pot next to Bill Gate's kettle. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "a veritable sage among limpets..." C. S. Lewis
dat@hpcnoa.UUCP (dat) (06/14/85)
Speaking of which, I've long thought that we perceive time
in a relative manner. There exists somewhere outside of human
perception an absolute time reference, and what we have as time is
our anthopologically biased interpretation of that.
Consider - we've all experienced having time go quite
slowly (waiting for 5:00 o'clock :-) and quickly (doing something
engrossing).
The 'traditional' explanation for this phenomenon is simply
that we are 'paying more or less attention to the passage of time'.
I disagree with this, however. My interpretation is that when
monitoring the passage of time conciously we actually change, for
a period of time, our PERCEPTION of time. We change, in a totally
individual manner, time itself. Similarly, if we don't notice time
passing it is because we have again changed our relative interpretation
of 'absolute' time.
In other words, a given clock interval can seem long to some and
short to others based on what they are doing. This is in fact caused by
their individual perception of time - they exist in parallel but in
universes that are oriented to a different 'speed'.
Consider also the case where two people are in a room
together - one has been working on an engrossing puzzle for an
hour and the other has sat watching the walls. After the same
period of time they will report having experienced a different
duration of time! The engrossed person would say something like
"An HOUR? I thought we were in there for five minutes!" while
the other would say "An HOUR? I thought we were in there for days!"
(The same phenomenon occurs in sensory deprivation systems, I'm
told). My contention is that their comments are in fact absolutely
true - that the have experienced different relative amounts of
time in the same absolute amount of time.
Similarly, I see no reason why absolute time isn't simply
another dimension in our universe. The same relative versus
absolute differences occur in physical measurement and perception too.
An argument in favour of time being another dimension
can be obtained by moving 'down' a level of existence to the
two dimensional world of Edwin Abbott's "Flatland". In this
universe the creatures can perceive forward-backward and up-down,
but cannot escape their plane of existence to the right-left
dimension that we are all familiar with.
What would happen if, for example, we took a rod of
metal and heated up one end. Having this heated bar we now
gradually moved it through the Flatland universe:
--------------
/ / <- Flatland
/ /
-------------- /---- <- The Heated Bar
------------- /-----
/ /
--------------
what we would see as simple third dimension motion (left-right)
the creatures of Flatland would view as a change in heat versus
TIME. They would perceive the change in temperature of the
cross-section of the bar that they could perceive as a function
of time, whereas we see it simply as a function of motion in
our third dimension.
Well? Anyone have any comments about this?
-- Dave Taylor
Hewlett Packardbill@hpfcms.UUCP (06/17/85)
>...but that the "God" model >is kind of boring, whereas the inductive model is deeper and more demanding. >Some people really like to solve puzzles, so they put a lot of effort into >trying to figure out how the whole world as we observe it might have arisen >from structurally simple origins tranformed by uniform rules. >Other people don't, so they say "God did it". This reduces insomnia. There you go again, Jim! The value, truthfulness, validity, and strength of an argument is directly proportional to the amount of effort required to formulate it. Talk about arrogance!!! This is the whole problem between God and man - pride. "God" is a "boring" model - too simple, too many questions answered (some by "We'll never know in this life."). But the myriads of theories arising from complexity and twisted logical thought MUST be true - I mean, look at the human effort needed to arrive at them! You CANNOT look down upon those who have accepted a "model" by faith, simply because they aren't putting in the effort you are to understand things (which may or may not be true). Also, the Bible says that the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. Perhaps God doesn't put much stock into these "deep" and "demanding" theories, either. Tell me, Jim. What makes one "model" better than another? From what I've read above, complexity and effort do. This is a faulty set of criteria, to say the least. And yes, I sleep really well - thanks! >(I will tell you one thing though; if I were God, I would think a lot more >highly of those who didn't believe in me.) > >-- Jim Balter (ima!jim) Why? Because the ones who don't believe are so much more intellectually active? Hogwash. I'm not intellectually stagnant - I ponder and wonder at lots of things, both within the Bible and outside the Bible. What makes a Christian so inferior to those who haven't stooped so low as to accept a (gag) faith? By the way, the Bible says that God wants nothing more than to have each one of us not only believe in Him, but glorify and praise Him. Perhaps He is intellectually stagnant too. Bill Gates
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (06/17/85)
>...There exists somewhere outside of human >perception an absolute time reference... >...Similarly, I see no reason why absolute time isn't simply >another dimension in our universe... > An argument in favour of time being another dimension >can be obtained by moving 'down' a level of existence to the >two dimensional world of Edwin Abbott's "Flatland"... >... Well? Anyone have any comments about this? -- Dave Taylor Ever since Newton, time was mathematically a 4th dimension, exactly as you described in your article, where you used our 3 dimensions to represent a 2-D world, representing time with the third dimension. However, until Einstein, there was little motivation to think of things this way; time was always totally separate from the indistinguishable spatial dimensions. For example, how would you interpret a cross-section not perpendicular to the dimension you used for `absolute time'? And in your model universe, there is no meaningful interpretation of the distance between two different points in two different cross-sections. Einstein's special relativity, much of which can be derived with little more than high-school algebra, views the universe somewhat as you described, except that time behaves formally as an `imaginary' spatial direction. One of the many odd results of this theory is that there is no absolute time such as you mentioned. Using your model, this is somewhat like saying that no reason to prefer one direction over another to represent time, or that one may arbitrarily select the angle for cutting cross-sections {however the existence of a speed limit `c' imposes a restriction on the slice-angle}; consequently events that are simultaneous to one viewer may not be to another. This is all admittedly hazy -- there are MANY good intro texts that describe Einstein's special relativity far better than I can. SMASH CAUSALITY!! -michael
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (csdf) (06/18/85)
In article <45200012@hpfcms.UUCP> bill@hpfcms.UUCP (bill) writes: >>...but that the "God" model >>is kind of boring, whereas the inductive model is deeper and more demanding. > >Tell me, Jim. What makes one "model" better than another? From what I've >read above, complexity and effort do. This is a faulty set of criteria, >to say the least. I can't speak for Jim, but the test of a model is application. For example: Physicist Alan Guth, one of the original men behind the Big Bang Theory has books of equations that balance out such that at the beginning of the Universe, the could be *nothing* and (through the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) a random quantum fluctuation could account for *everything*. This may seem like a mindgame, and perhaps it is, but it gives far more insight into the present state of the universe than the 7-day idea. Perhaps your God set it up that way to show us something? Why, if the Bible contradicts it? A test a faith, maybe? Perhaps, but that leaves Christians with an awesome philisophical cop-out: either something is "shown" in the Bible, or it is a test of faith. One could say that about just about anything. >By the way, the Bible says that God wants nothing more than to have each >one of us not only believe in Him, but glorify and praise Him. Perhaps >He is intellectually stagnant too. > >Bill Gates Sometimes, when I feel really good, I say to myself, "What a wonderful world this is." Sometimes this happens when I've ingested mind-altering substances, or when I'm engaged in pre-marital relations or all sorts of incredibly sinful activities. Yet, this feeling is my version of "praising God" for I am showing sincere appreciation for "His" work. Are you seriously going to tell me that "He" is too insecure to appreciate my "praise" unless I stop "sinning" and start praying? A being so collosal as to defy human reason must certainly be able to see a little deeper than that; I think intellectual stagnation applies. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX.ARPA "Safe for now...."
erics@uottawa.UUCP (Eric Smith) (06/28/85)
In <45200012@hpfcms.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: >The god model is not a simple solution, or a solution at all, because >it leaves unanswered at least as many questions as it answers. That >god created the world begs the question "Who created god?" I could >come up with atheory that said tha god1 created th world and that god2 >created god1. Furthermore, I could say that there is an infinite series >of gods, god1, god2, . . ., godn, . . ., etc. This "theory" has as much >merit as the monotheistic one, yet I suspect that you find it less >appealing (correct me, of course, if I'm wrong). Why? > Mike Sykora Of course, the simplest assumption (and the one held by traditional theology) is that God has *always* existed, hence the question "Where did God come from?" is irrelevant. The "theory" mentioned above is much more complicated -- I would think that the simpler one would be more likely to be true. The idea that the *universe* has always existed is even simpler; but various evidence, e.g. the mass of the universe, relative abundance of deuterium, etc. seem to indicate that the universe is a one-shot deal which arose out of nothingness ~15 billion years ago (I'm sure I'll be corrected if inaccurate). So postulating a creator for it seems reasonable; it's either that or have something spontaneously created out of nothing. In any case, the creation of the universe is clearly a 'supernatural' event, since it involves a gross violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy. -- Eric Smith "No matter where you go, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont. there you are." ...utzoo!dciem!nrcaero!uottawa!erics - B. Banzai