patrick.net

Randy H says

A line cannot... is broken.

What are you smoking and how much does it cost?

marcus says

Is .99999999999999...(repeating) equal to one ? If so, than please tell me what is the number that comes right before one ?

As someone who claims to be a math teacher, you should know that second question is meaningless as the real numbers, like the rational numbers, are of the second order of infinity and the "comes right before" question applies only to countably infinite (1st order infinity) or finite (0 order infinity) ordered sets. That's basic abstract algebra.

I don't know how this thread got off tracked to math and physics, but here are a few facts.

In a continuous space like the mathematical space used in Euclidean geometry, a line segment can be divided in half an arbitrary number of times. A line segment has finite length by definition and is infinitely divisible by the following technique.

Create two circles at either endpoint of the segment with a radius equal to the sequent. Bisect the line segment by drawing another at the two points where the circles intersect. Repeat as many times as you like, even to infinity.

The physical universe, however, is discrete on the quantum level. Matter, energy, space, and time all occur in discrete quantities. For example, the smallest unit of length with any meaning in the classical sense is the Plank Length. And the smallest unit of time, the moment if you will, is the Plank Time, which is the time it takes light to travel the Plank Length in a vacuum.

I would argue that the universe is deterministic even though its not fully predictable and that true randomness does not exist even though the concept is useful in statistical analysis of physical phenomenon. And yes, technically the universe does satisfy the definition of a computer. Put that does not imply that there is a programmer or a purpose to its calculations.

thunderlips11 says

Modern religionists should explain why their all-powerful, timeless, benevolent god cares for a good barbeque. Seems to me a being that existed forever, needs no sustenance, etc. wouldn't have much of a use for a grilled steak.

Why can't a super being enjoy a good bit of meat, no doubt with a glass of scotch? Sounds good to me!

Dan8267 says

As someone who claims to be a math teacher

Okay well, of course I ignored you again the other day because of your obnoxious personality (again).

I unignored just now, because of a bet I had with myself. Will he be:

1) adding to the conversation

2) restating something I said

3) just trying to mix t up with me again - basically criticiszing or in some way asserting again that I'm an idiot.

I predicted correcltly that it would be #2, #3 or a combination of both.

For the record, you are wrong, rational numbers are countably infinite. Since by definition a rational number can be expressed as a quotient of two integers, it's easy to set up a two dimensional matrix or maybe I should say lattice with a description of how you will "count" them.

Irrational numbers are (as I said) uncountably infinite. SO of course the real numbers which include both rational and irrational are uncountably infinite.

To get an idea how much bigger the one infinity is than the other: If you were able to randomly select a real number, the probability that it would be a rational number is zero. That is, there is a zero chance that the number would be rational.

Dan8267 says

the "comes right before" question applies only to countably infinite

This is also wrong. Even for any two rational number you give me, it's simple to come up with one that is between them (actually an infinite number of rational numbers between them).

Dan8267 says

The physical universe, however, is discrete on the quantum level. Matter, energy, space, and time all occur in discrete quantities. For example, the smallest unit of length with any meaning in the classical sense is the Plank Length.

Even if the first sentence is true, I'm not so sure about the second. And the third sounds wrong to me. Plank length is only a theoretical smallest measurable length.

I'm not a physicist, but it seems to me that even if there are fundamentally smallest particles in this reality of ours, I don't see why they cant have an actual length even if the length is far too small to measure. But this is getting away from factual knowledge (at least of mine) and in to speculation. I don't claim to know.

I'll admit it. I'm curious, will Dan admit to being wrong before he puts together a long paper about particle physics for us ?

It could be a break through. If he does admit to being wrong, will it be couched in another of his famous rants about what an idiot I am ?

I really am curious.

(My prediction is that it is not possible for him to do it in a humble way. At a minimum, if he does admit he's wrong - he has to figure out a way to do it where he can still assert how much smarter he is than I ).

I'm looking for some creativity this time Dan. Don't let me down.

Dan, I think the best bet would be a few thousand words about physics showing us how smart you are, with possibly just 8 words acknowledging your error about rational numbers and what countably infinite means.

In perspective the errors will seem small and insignificant.

I think going with that would work fairly well. Not many people are reading this anyway. Don't worry about it.

The original post at the top of the thread says it all.

What's that? THat there are are assholes out there that that are still doing what most people get over at the age of 15 or 16 ?

That is, challenging the logic of religious belief. As I said, the believers know they can't prove their beliefs and don't claim that they can. I guess engaging a religious person in a logical debate about their beliefs can give a person a feeling of intellectual superiority (especially if they are an adolescent).

That's what I think the cartoon is about.

marcus says

As I said, the believers know they can't prove their beliefs and don't claim that they can.

Many, many, many (yes that was 3 "manys") believers believe that they can prove their belief. Volumes are written by believers that think they can prove that they have the one true belief.

Only believers that lean towards the rational acknowledge that religious belief can not (currently) be proven.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3q3sgx/

leoj707 says

Many, many, many (yes that was 3 "manys") believers believe that they can prove their belief.

In all of the respected divinity schools and schools of christian learning including Catholic seminaries, I believe that it's understood that their beliefs can not be proven. Hence the word 'faith.'

Fundamentalists are another story.

[...]

curious2 says

The Templeton Prize is only the latest in a long list, as "proofs" of Christianity go back at least to Medieval times.

The Templeton prize isn't about proving Christianity.

http://www.templetonprize.org/previouswinner.html

http://www.templetonprize.org/abouttheprize.html

curious2 says

The converse also applies: the vehement opponents of teaching evolution are almost exclusively Christian,

THat's really only fundamentalists.

marcus says

In all of the respected divinity schools and schools of christian learning including Catholic seminaries, I believe that it's understood that their beliefs can not be proven. Hence the word 'faith.'

While this may be the case for "scholars" in divinity schools the rank and file overwhelmingly believe that their faith can be "proven". The Catholic tradition is steeped in "proof" that their faith is true -- Jesus ever appear on your toast? Well, other people have so it must be true, right?

Yes, this is contrary to the idea of faith, and often the "proof" they choose to grasp to is simple circular logic, i.e., the bible proves my belief in god is true -- god wrote the bible so the bible is true.

If the majority of religious people believed that their faith could not be proven then we would see a lot less videos like this:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/nfv-Qn1M58I

curious2 says

Actually, the insistence on proving a religious belief seems mostly Christian.

Perhaps the "insistence" on proving their religion is mostly christian, but I don't think this means that other don't think that their faith can't be or isn't proven.

First, lots of non-judeo-christian-islam religions are not mutually exclusive in regards to other spiritual beliefs. So, no need to prove your faith is the "right" one to believe.

Second, I think that in a lot of places the "proof" in the supernatural is just assumed. If Hindu's believed that it was impossible empirically "prove" their faith then the god men con-artists would loose their living. Why would you give money to someone who basically proves that the supernatural exists?

[...]

marcus says

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3q3sgx/

Yes, that image is amusing, but there is a fundamental problem with the assumption made by the image -- that Christians don’t actually do anything that merits pissing off an atheist; atheists are getting their panties in a bunch simply because Christians exist.

Do you honestly think that Christians have given Atheists no reason to be pissed off?

Also, it is not that there is something special about Christianity that draws the ire of atheists. Any proselytizing faith that had a huge bulk of members pushing things like intelligent design for science classes would also piss of Atheists.

curious2 says

It will be interesting to see what happens if someone proves conclusively that Jesus never actually lived

No need to for them to worry. Baring time travel, I don't think that can ever be proven.

Mathematics allows for many concepts which are entirely abstract and exceed the constraints of the physics of the universe.

This reminds me of a quote, "Black holes are God dividing by zero."

[...]

curious2 says

Ah, but many do worry, in proportion to their own doubt, which is why they insist everyone must echo the same doctrine and live accordingly. Meanwhile, evidence tending towards disproof continues to be catalogued:

Unfortunately I will have to wait until this evening to watch the videos, but I have heard the arguments against the existence of a historical Jesus.

While -- based on the current evidence -- I think that it may be likely that historical Jesus did not exist, that is far from proof that he did not exist. It is much easier to prove that something exists rather than prove that it does not exist.

Even using a time machine I am sure that some will still doubt that it proves the non-existence of historical Jesus. How could we be sure that we were going back in "our" timeline, maybe it just transported us back to some alternate dimensions time, and there was still really a historical Jesus in our timeline.

[...]

Dan8267 says

I would argue that the universe is deterministic even though its not fully predictable and that true randomness does not exist even though the concept is useful in statistical analysis of physical phenomenon. And yes, technically the universe does satisfy the definition of a computer. Put that does not imply that there is a programmer or a purpose to its calculations.

I'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist. But Dan captured pretty much what I was trying to convey, and which marcus sort of jokingly hinted at: the physical universe is granular (or digital, if you will). Continuity is a wonderfully useful mathematical concept that helps figure out all sort'a'stuff. But at the quantum level, empirically observable things are not infinite. And somewhere I do recall that even adding lots and lots of zero-order things together are still zero-order sums.

The reason I brought this up is that the most compelling arguments when it comes to "god" are empirical, not philosophical. Philosophy is very vulnerable to attack by both those of religious faith as well as those of "post modern" inclination. But the scientific process and empirical observation have the impact of permanently altering the way humans tend to think about things henceforth. (No, I'm not knocking theory and all that flows therefrom, but theory isn't ultimately any more useful than philosophy without tests to validate or falsify said theory).

So, again, if the Universe (the physical one, not the conceptually mathematical but only in our heads one) turns out to be finite, then that breaks a fundamentalist [evangelical-variety] tenant at the core.

Even if the concept of an infinitely small length or distance in a vacuum of space (infinitesimal to use newton's word), even if this makes sense in reality, I don't see that this means the universe is infinite in size.

But then regardless, I don't get this anyway:

Randy H says

So, again, if the Universe (the physical one, not the conceptually mathematical but only in our heads one) turns out to be finite, then that breaks a fundamentalist [evangelical-variety] tenant at the core.

Maybe because God is referred to sometimes as infinte ?

curious2 says

Meanwhile, evidence tending towards disproof continues to be catalogued:

I watched the video. At the end when he visits the fundamentalist school he attended as a young child, and goes to the chapel to deny the holy spirit, I couldn't help but be reminded of the Einstein quote I have shared a couple times before.

The fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot hear the music of the spheres
-Albert Einstein

[...]

@marcus

I was originally responding to Bap33, who believes in a very fundamentalist, classical interpretation of god from the king james bible. That interpreation of god is one that necessitates infinity. Though I suspect the response will be that, even if the universe is finite, god lies outside the universe. However, I think we may then preclude the possibility of an extra-universal god interacting with our physical universe in any observable way.

And on another note: you guys make it hard to be a skeptic, with your bedside manner and all. I mean you can't even co-exist as math geeks without pouncing on each other.

curious2 says

True, and even Richard Dawkins acknowledged he couldn't prove that there isn't a giant teapot orbiting the sun between Jupiter and Saturn.

Proving a negative, i.e., there is not a teapot...

curious2 says

OJ Simpson was acquitted of criminal homicide, but found liable for wrongful death, and there was no contradiction between the two cases: the criminal case required proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the civil case required proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

Proving a positive, i.e., OJ did commit the crime...

curious2 says

Both cases involved proof, based on empirical evidence, even though evidence may always be subject to different explanations with different likelihoods. Proof is often a bit like quantum mechanics, subject to theoretical uncertainty but proved to a level of probability.

Yes, and "proving" a positive is subject to a much lower "theoretical uncertainty".

curious2 says

If "proof" required proving beyond any conceivable doubt, then no case would ever be decided and the word would disappear from the language.

Agreed, that is why I am not saying that it is impossible to prove a negative, but the relative "ease" in proving a positive will assure that the word does not disappear.

marcus says

...traditional 'opium of the people'...
-Albert Einstein

I am not sure about Einstein's time, but today when someone refers to religion as the "opium of the people" they are branded as a "fanatical" atheist.

[...]

Randy H says

I mean you can't even co-exist as math geeks without pouncing on each other.

You don't know the history. Dan and I have argued over religion several times in the past. I was blunt with him about sounding arrogant, which is true, but it got really ugly after that. He's often a reasonable guy, but not with me. And it is very much my fault because I find his position childish and stupid and have said as much.

Spirituality and religion isn't going away any more than human suffering is. Anyone with an IQ over 30 knows that.

What makes more sense ? Arguing for better more sophisticated religions, and advocating for the many that already are ?

OR arguing that all religion is evil and that we all need to be atheists.

Dan might as well be an agent for the fundamentalists.

He has been just as much a jerk with me in discussions of other topics. And has said repeatedly (in discussions about logic) that I couldn't possibly be a Math teacher or have a masters degree in Math. Usually I don't even bite with his weak arguments, because they are either semiirrelevant or they are designed to change the subject in small ways. I guess that's what I get for pointing out his arrogance.

(which he can't deny by the way - it's either a huge part of his personality, or a huge part of the character he plays on Patnet)

The guy can be a world class jerk. Other times he sounds like a fairly smart guy. His emotional challenges seem to make him his own worst enemy (although again maybe that's only in this anonymous world). I don't think Patrick shows the number of people ignoring a person any more, but Dan was rapidly approaching 15.

I put him on ignore the other day, again after this:

Dan8267 says

Please people. As Marcus has said thousands of time, ................

Click it and it will take you to the thread if you have nothing better to do. He has accused me of trolling him, but notice he brings me into a conversation I was no part of with a silly sarcastic generalization of something I once said in an argument.

As I said, There's a history.

@marcus

Thanks for the response. I meant no disrespect to either of you from my part in this thread. You're both obviously intelligent. But I can see some history obviously exists and I will admit I had Dan on ignore for a while myself given his rather abrupt and unwarrented retort to some earlier discussions.

I also usually don't chime in on religious discussions because I count myself as one of the few remaining true Objectivists. But I also really like Bap33 and have seen his tolerance leak out during his weaker moments, so I got suckered into this one.

I appreciated your retorts to infinity. Very informative and a lesson that a sideways 8 isn't the antibody ignorance, no matter how you look at it.

nobody on here is all that bad. Even me. lol

I miss Surfer X. Sufer X used the F word like Picaso uses paint.

Fuck yea. I miss X.

Battle of the Einstein Quotes:

Einstein penned the letter on January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt. The letter went on public sale a year later and has remained in private hands ever since.

In the letter, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Einstein, who was Jewish and who declined an offer to be the state of Israel's second president, also rejected the idea that the Jews are God's favoured people.

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."