Liberal myth

[BSB]

"Or if you  REALLY want to f*ck with the Man, name her Dixie Lee."

Ha ha.

You have to watch your mind all the time or it'll start playing games. There was a Harvard study involving the subject answering a series of questions and at the end it would rate how much prejudging was going on. The questions were like, who is more likely to run a company successfully, a man or a women? Or, a white person or an hispanic person? The questions were set up well, wondering around, then coming back to the same sort of question slightly disguised. One of the authors of the study, a black women, wasn't free of falling into a trap even when she took it. That's how engrained this sort of thinking is. I see my mind working it's way towards this kind of prejudice on its own accord, and pull it back. So that's what you have to learn to do. We're all susceptible. You have to monitor yourself.


BSB

[Plane]

"Or if you  REALLY want to f*ck with the Man, name her Dixie Lee."

Ha ha.

You have to watch your mind all the time or it'll start playing games.....
BSB

Totally true , it isn't even avoidable really, but by being aware of it , it can be coped with.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I was surprised that so many students had never questioned any of their beliefs. In a philosophy 101 class, many thought that their destinies were determined by astrology, yet they all considered these beliefs to be entirely in harmony with Christianity.

The idea never occurred to them that if your fate was determined by the stars, then you are fated to be saved or sent to Hell, and Jesus cannot change this, because it is your fate to believe in Jesus or not. If fate determines all that you do, then no decision that you make is a true decision, but one that fate compelled you to make.

Of course, the usual proof that most had for God's existence was to say that everything must have been created, since nothing can be eternal. But, of course this is true, then God must be eternal. Which is easier to believe: that (1) an all-knowing, eternal all powerful being created everything (except himself) out of nothing, or that the universe is an immeasurably large expanse of constantly moving, constantly changing matter that has always existed, as matter, energy, or some unknown form or forms?

The principle of Ockham's razor is that when there are several possibilities, the simplest is more likely the best explanation. Of course, that still does not make it true, just the best point of departure from which to posit further questions.

Why can nothing be eternal, anyway?

Naturally, they asked me "what do you believe?". Naturally, I told them, "that should be of no importance to you. I am not trying to convert anyone to anything, only to ask the questions that obviously need to be answered."

[Plane]

Naturally, they asked me "what do you believe?". Naturally, I told them, "that should be of no importance to you. I am not trying to convert anyone to anything, only to ask the questions that obviously need to be answered."

Doesn't Occams razor require that there be a choice?

Then all elese being equal the simpler explanation is preferred.

I understand this , but I do not think it applies.

Why does the lack of a creator for all creation simpler?


Why must these questions be answered ?

Why are your students questionable, while you are unavailible?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I did not say that any questions needed to be answered. I am not and never have sought to convert anyone, only to inform them of the logical possibilities.

A swirling chaotic mass of  energy and matter is simpler than an omniscient omnipotent Creator creature in addition to whatever said being might use to create a universe with. Creating something out of nothing is simply impossible. The principle of Ockham's Razor would suggest that the simpler situation would be more likely.

The choice in any situation involving Ockham's Razor is between a simpler hypothesis and one that is more complex.

One example was the case of the Solar System. Originally, hideously complicated formulas were used to predict the future positions of the Sun, Moon and planets, based on the concept that the Earth was the center of all creation. When the concept that the Sun was at the center, the calculations were simplified.

I think it was known that the Moon revolved around the Earth, and that was the basis for both the geocentric system as well as the Solarcentric system. The problem was theological: Man was the purpose of creation, and logically should have been at the center. To dispute this was to suggest that Man was NOT the purpose of creation, and that was heresy.  It still is for some people.

[Plane]

I am unaware of any scripture that places man as the purpose of all creation.

How would you interpret "What is man, that thou art mindfull of him?"?

http://biblehub.com/psalms/8-4.htm

"Man is the measure of all things" Is an anchient attitude , but I don't answer to that religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

[Plane]

I did not say that any questions needed to be answered. I am not and never have sought to convert anyone, only to inform them of the logical possibilities.

I would like to change your mind, but I acnoledge that I have no right to do so and will influence your thoughts only as far as you are willing.

A swirling chaotic mass of  energy and matter is simpler than an omniscient omnipotent Creator creature in addition to whatever said being might use to create a universe with. Creating something out of nothing is simply impossible. The principle of Ockham's Razor would suggest that the simpler situation would be more likely.

Why is it to be considered simple that a system with almost no complexity will develop a lot of complexity and structure?
When you find a lawnmower in a field the simple explanation is that someone parked it there after someone built it, you may claim that it is simpler to say that the tractor just grew there , but I don't find that persuasive.

The choice in any situation involving Ockham's Razor is between a simpler hypothesis and one that is more complex.

Yes but what is making your favoriate choice the simpler one?

One example was the case of the Solar System. Originally, hideously complicated formulas were used to predict the future positions of the Sun, Moon and planets, based on the concept that the Earth was the center of all creation. When the concept that the Sun was at the center, the calculations were simplified.

I think it was known that the Moon revolved around the Earth, and that was the basis for both the geocentric system as well as the Solarcentric system. The problem was theological: Man was the purpose of creation, and logically should have been at the center. To dispute this was to suggest that Man was NOT the purpose of creation, and that was heresy.  It still is for some people.

  This is a famous error, but one thing that we can learn from it is that a simulation can work, even if it is just about the reverse of correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy

Ptolemy presented a useful tool for astronomical calculations in his Handy Tables, which tabulated all the data needed to compute the positions of the Sun, Moon and planets, the rising and setting of the stars, and eclipses of the Sun and Moon. Ptolemy's Handy Tables provided the model for later astronomical tables or z?jes. In the Phaseis (Risings of the Fixed Stars), Ptolemy gave a parapegma, a star calendar or almanac, based on the hands and disappearances of stars over the course of the solar year.

Perhaps we know the truth better now , but some bits of what we "know" might be working because they are reversals of the truth.

[Xavier_Onassis]

When you find a lawnmower in a field the simple explanation is that someone parked it there after someone built it, you may claim that it is simpler to say that the tractor just grew there , but I don't find that persuasive.

===================================================
If I found a lawnmower in a field, the simplest explanation would be that someone left it there. This is because I know that lawnmowers are not a natural occurrence.

Assuming an eternal omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being is far more complicated than a swirling mass of energy and matter. I was not expressing a favorite, anyway, I was simply explaining how Ockham's razor works. Usually it gives the best hypothesis to work on.

[Plane]

There is a principal of thermodynamics that is just as powerfull as Occams razor.


The Second law of Thermo dynamics  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
This  means that things grow less ordered .

That the processes of life and the operations of the Universe often ignore this law is not easily understood in a strictly thoughtless Universe.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The phrase "Man is the measure of all things" is not biblical, it is one of the guiding principles of the Renaissance. It was originally coined by the Greeks.

The medieval slogan was "God is the measure of all things", by which was meant that the Church's interpretation of what God was like was used as the measure of all things. The greatest art was religious art, the greatest architecture was the building of cathedrals and monasteries, the greatest minds thought about how the main goal of every human was to attain heaven.

There was not much progress during this period, because progress, ie living longer and better were seen as selfishly human pursuits.

It is pretty clear that the Second law of Thermodynamics does not guide the evolutionary processes. It is clear that life on this planet started with the least complex creatures, essentially self-replicating organic compounds, and progressed to more complex creatures. Ockham's Razor is a part of a logical reasoning process, and does not actually apply to what happens on this planet, only to suppositions about how we interpret the causes of what happens.

[Plane]

It is pretty clear that the Second law of Thermodynamics does not guide the evolutionary processes. It is clear that life on this planet started with the least complex creatures, essentially self-replicating organic compounds, and progressed to more complex creatures. Ockham's Razor is a part of a logical reasoning process, and does not actually apply to what happens on this planet, only to suppositions about how we interpret the causes of what happens.

Yes , enthropy doesn;t seem to apply to evolution at all .

Either it is a special case , or there is a special reason.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Evolution is not possible without thwarting the Law of Entropy. All failed attempts would result in the extinction of the failing life form. That is how evolution works.

Just as most birds have developed in such a way as to thwart gravity.

Aquatic creatures have developed lungs to live in the atmosphere.

That is simply how evolution works: life develops to survive in the situations in which it must live.

Entropy, gravity and the environment all must be dealt with.

[Plane]

Evolution is not possible without thwarting the Law of Entropy. All failed attempts would result in the extinction of the failing life form. That is how evolution works.

Just as most birds have developed in such a way as to thwart gravity.

Aquatic creatures have developed lungs to live in the atmosphere.

That is simply how evolution works: life develops to survive in the situations in which it must live.

Entropy, gravity and the environment all must be dealt with.

So everything , except life and intelligence, grows simpler over time.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't think that is true.

Life and intelligence influence whatever they come in contact with.

[Plane]

I don't think that is true.

Life and intelligence influence whatever they come in contact with.

Yes, everything influences everything , ask BsB for further elucidation of that point.