tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1497973436152867663..comments2024-03-18T09:58:09.828-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The Discovery Institute Presents the Case for MagicLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger208125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49910184001965094702012-11-30T00:21:25.951-05:002012-11-30T00:21:25.951-05:00But the Dover case is a shameful episode because i...<i>But the Dover case is a shameful episode because it was in large part won because of Miller's lies.</i><br /><br />I'm an attorney. I've read not only the judge's opinion in the Dover case, but most of the transcript. Your statement above bears only as much resemblance to the actual facts as the two words "Dover" and "Miller" provide. <br /><br />There were many, many reasons the Dover case was won. The central issue in the case was whether what the defendants had done constituted an establishment of religion. By far the most powerful evidence on that front was provided by the defendants themselves, who for example took up church collections to buy copies of "Of Pandas and People" to place in school libraries, then ordered the science teachers to tell their students this text was available. Defendants then proceeded to lie in court about collecting for the book purchase - not a way to convince the court of your bona fides when you say you had no religious motivation at all.<br /><br />After this sorry show and many others on the part of defendants and their witnesses (including Behe, whose utter dismantling on cross examination was so total the trial judge has recommended it should be taught to law students), there wasn't a lot that plaintiffs' witnesses had left to do.<br />Judnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73757127168614428132012-11-29T18:36:56.537-05:002012-11-29T18:36:56.537-05:00Hi Andy,
It is hard to try an answer without ente...Hi Andy,<br /><br />It is hard to try an answer without entering into a defence of Larry, who I know is able to do that himself if he cared. However, you confirm that all you wanted was to say that Larry engages in propaganda, and thus I suggest that you should have shown something of Larry's that was as bad as this video. I don;t think you would find it. Larry engaged in a few hyperboles here in his answers to you, but he never was like the video. Not even close. So I think you overjudged Larry while accusing him of doing exactly that.<br /><br />As for the video, come on! I was so nauseated by the propagandistic level that I could not finish watching it. Example, they did isolate a few words by the US president to make him look as "possessed" by "scientism." The word scientism itself is a derogative term, not the name of any philosophy. Man, it was as OTT as Larry presented it (I would say it's worse than that). And yes, despite Larry disowned his own words as sarcasm, I would not. One clear goal of the video is to attack rationality and critical thinking by engaging the audience into emotional turmoil. Associating scientists with "evil." The video is not appealing to reason but to emotion and rhetoric.<br /><br />So sorry, but I don't think that you will find anything by Larry that looks like 1% of this video crap. Also remember that the IDiots are all about this and nothing else. I think that your judgement of Larry's blog is OTT. Not just wrong, but terribly wrong. I cannot see how would anybody conclude with good reason that Larry's blog is propaganda, let alone that kind of propaganda.<br /><br />As for commenters, I do not think that you can blame Larry for what we say.<br /><br />See ya in another thread. I have had little time these days, so might not come back to this thread again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61956488163892357492012-11-29T15:50:16.301-05:002012-11-29T15:50:16.301-05:00The earth business doesn't bother me at all. M...The earth business doesn't bother me at all. My point is simply that humans are the only creatures we know of that are able to make decisions and to choose to do things in a way that shows we cannot be fully determined by any forces external to us. That's what the spreadsheet proof shows. And the fact you hate it despite not being able to come up with anything wrong with it simply shows that some humans are so terrified of reality they prefer to hide behind a notion of themselves as the puppets of higher power. Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11254880328203581642012-11-29T15:34:35.782-05:002012-11-29T15:34:35.782-05:00I'm thinking it's well past time for the m...I'm thinking it's well past time for the men in white coats to unplug the internet connection, remove the keyboard gently but firmly from your hands (and letting the drool drain off) and escort you back to the rubber room.<br /><br />A change in the meds may be in order as well.steve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24203195698937757182012-11-29T15:28:37.005-05:002012-11-29T15:28:37.005-05:00@Luther Flint
I must say that you certainly have ...@Luther Flint<br /><br />I must say that you certainly have a bug up your butt about human exceptionalism.<br /><br />Must have been a real shock to you when you discovered that the earth was not the centre of the universe and does in fact revolve around the sun.<br /><br />Although it would come as no surprise to me for you to argue in favour of geo-centrism.<br /><br />Well, at least in the case of free will you haven't created your own special terminology.<br /><br />I don't think I could handle another session of the transcendence/culture flip flopping.<br /><br />With respect to your spreadsheet "proof", this is just a ham fisted attempt at humour isn't it ?<br /><br />You aren't really deranged enough to consider this compelling, let alone coherent, are you ?<br />steve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28492947271775727542012-11-29T15:15:04.522-05:002012-11-29T15:15:04.522-05:00Yeah, so you got it wrong. That doesn't mean t...Yeah, so you got it wrong. That doesn't mean that my extraordinary abilities don't still need an explanation. That just tells us what we already knew, that you're such a clown you can't even say with any certainty what drivel is going to spring from your lips next.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8797536535791394452012-11-29T15:12:54.874-05:002012-11-29T15:12:54.874-05:00No, the effect isn't the same, because I don&#...No, the effect isn't the same, because I don't need to follow that pattern. I could pick whatever cell I liked. Anyway, even if we grant your example, that still shows that the state of the universe at t-minus 100 years does not determine the state of the universe at t. And that was the main point of the anti-determinism part of the argument.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-73347643438681098732012-11-29T14:58:54.757-05:002012-11-29T14:58:54.757-05:00Oh boy, I can play this idiot game as well.
I pre...Oh boy, I can play this idiot game as well.<br /><br />I predict 41.<br /><br />42.<br />steve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-7247832144414739332012-11-29T14:48:02.488-05:002012-11-29T14:48:02.488-05:00Note how different it would be if we used a random...<i>Note how different it would be if we used a random number generator to pick the cell. In that case you would guess correctly exactly as chance would suggest.</i><br /><br />Suppose that I am replaced by a random number generator which "guesses" that cell D761 will be white, and you are replaced by a mindless automaton which colours cell X black if the number generator picks that cell. The effect is the same: the generator's guess will never be correct.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13179899035381651272012-11-29T14:35:06.549-05:002012-11-29T14:35:06.549-05:00Firstly, look, if the states of the universe at so...Firstly, look, if the states of the universe at some time in the past determine how the states of the universe had to be now, then the the fact that, say, cell A1 is black now means that the universe in the past must have been in the kind of state that would lead, deterministically, to cell A1 being black now. Thus we can categorise previous states of the universe in terms of their effects. Thus we can say that the universe at time t-minus 100 years was in a cell-A1-is-black-at-time-t state if cell A1 is black at time t. Whereas, if cell B1 was black at time t then the universe must have been in a cell-B1-is-black-at-time-t state at t-minus 100 years. The problem being, why can you not guess the state of the universe at t-minus 100 years?<br /><br />Also, of course you could lie, or destroy the spreadsheet etc, but if someone was to play by the rules we would still need to explain how their guesses were wrong each and every time. That is, if they are trying to pick a state the universe wasn't in but they keep picking the very state the universe was in (at billions to one against) then we need to explain how that is possible. Note how different it would be if we used a random number generator to pick the cell. In that case you would guess correctly exactly as chance would suggest. But throw a human into the mix and suddenly all bets are off. This difference needs explaining - and the explanation is that people are agents and are not determined by previous states of the universe.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74750808761584587312012-11-29T14:12:29.529-05:002012-11-29T14:12:29.529-05:00That is, there is only one state the universe can ...<i>That is, there is only one state the universe can actually have been in with regard to which cell will be black</i><br /><br />How can you be so dense? "Cell number n is black" is not a state of the Universe. It is a state of cell number n, nothing more. The rest of the Universe, including you and me, can be in any number of states, each corresponding to different initial conditions. I can refuse to tell you which cell I have chosen, or lie to you, or prevent you from editing the worksheet. I don't have to play by the rule -- either because I exercise *my* free will in that way or (if there's no free will) because it was predetermined that I should deceive you or tell you go fuck yourself. Don't blame me, it was on the cards.<br /><br /><i>Looks like the previous states of the universe dance to my tune.</i><br /><br />What is your tune? "Diary of the Madman"?<br />Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27832584102431358312012-11-29T12:58:40.098-05:002012-11-29T12:58:40.098-05:00But if it was predetermined by the state of the un...But if it was predetermined by the state of the universe 100 years ago, how come you are unable to ever guess the state of the universe 100 years ago no matter how we load the dice in your favour. That is, there is only one state the universe can actually have been in with regard to which cell will be black and nothing I do now can change that. How, then, do you manage to get it wrong every time when all you have to do is guess one state - out of billions - that the universe was NOT in. That is, time and again you guess the very state the universe happened to be in. And what's worse, if I want to I can tell you in advance exactly how many times your guess will be right. Looks like the previous states of the universe dance to my tune.<br /><br />I do like the way you offer these one word descriptions of what you are about to write though. "Bollocks" captured it perfectly.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45809670975955639462012-11-29T12:49:18.500-05:002012-11-29T12:49:18.500-05:00That's because I decide what happens, and I ca...<i>That's because I decide what happens, and I can do that because, within some very loose boundaries (such as not going faster than the speed of light) I have free will.</i><br /><br />Bollocks. If the future is predetermined, what you mistake for the result of your free choice was already predetermined 100 years ago. It was also predetermined that you would *believe* you were exercising your free will.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-92126878103870962242012-11-29T12:15:30.170-05:002012-11-29T12:15:30.170-05:00Also, probability has nothing to do with it, becau...Also, probability has nothing to do with it, because whatever you say the probability is, I can make it be whatever I want. That is, I can make your guess be correct 0% of the time, or 100% of the time, or anything in between to any number of decimal places I choose. And in such cases claiming the thing is probabilistic is meaningless. That's because I decide what happens, and I can do that because, within some very loose boundaries (such as not going faster than the speed of light) I have free will.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12483996758381373322012-11-29T12:04:19.629-05:002012-11-29T12:04:19.629-05:00Nobody is trying to guess which cell will black. T...Nobody is trying to guess which cell will black. They are trying to guess what the state of the universe was 100 years ago. And nothing I do now can change the state of the universe 100 years ago. The problem being, how can your guesses about the state of the universe 100 years ago be so bizarrely wrong?Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75535632159583876282012-11-29T11:53:03.069-05:002012-11-29T11:53:03.069-05:00Luther: this needs explaining
What needs explaini...Luther: <i>this needs explaining</i><br /><br />What needs explaining? You simply misunderstand probability theory. Imagine there are two players, A and B, and a worksheet with N cells. A "guesses" that a cell chosen by him will be non-black, and B colours one cell black. If A and B make *independent* choices, the probability of an incorrect guess equals 1/N. But if the choices are *not* independent, the probability is conditional. Let P(X, n) mean the probability that player X chooses cell number n. The probability that A guesses incorrectly equals P(B, n|A, n) = 1 for every n if B knows A's choice and simply follows it. No need to invoke free will: you can use a (pseudo)random number generator to make the choice unconscious. If you happen to live in a universe (apparently unlike ours) where everything is strictly deterministic, so is the fact that A chooses cell number n, as well as the fact that B follows A's choice.Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72224935306946562242012-11-29T11:52:27.355-05:002012-11-29T11:52:27.355-05:00Thus your demonstrably false faith seems like some...Thus your demonstrably false faith seems like some childish refusal to accept what's before your eyes on the basis of something you desperately want to be true. I guess it helps you sleep at night to blame physics for the shit which pours from your mouth on daily basis. Unfortunately though, it is you, rather than physics, that is responsible.<br /><br />Also, if physics really was responsible, then what are you having a go at me for? Take it up with Einstein.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-37682575443029592642012-11-29T11:40:38.281-05:002012-11-29T11:40:38.281-05:00Several point:
1. I can predict which cell will b...Several point:<br /><br />1. I can predict which cell will be black. I can predict it every time. Take a slightly different version: at the end of this post a number between 1 and 1,000,000,000,000 will appear. I predict it will be 428,546,111,759. Let's see if I get it right.<br /><br />2. If I was determined by physical states of the universe then each potential state of the universe in the past (say, 100 years ago) can be associated with one number appearing below. All you have to do, is try to guess one of the billions of states the universe was NOT in. That means you have 999,999,999,999 chances of being right and only one chance of being wrong (ie, guessing by accident the state the universe actually was in). How do you explain the fact you would get this wrong every time? <br /><br />3. Deal with the argument rather than just spouting some grand statement of your demonstrably false faith. <br /><br />Demonstrably false because, oh, look at this<br /><br />428,546,111,759Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18425760075391796222012-11-29T10:59:38.447-05:002012-11-29T10:59:38.447-05:00If there was a pre established (or even determined...<i>If there was a pre established (or even determined, or even random/determined)future then you should be able to guess what it is in a way you can't. </i><br /><br />You're pulling that claim out of your backside just like every other claim that you have made.<br /><br />I can't predict which spreadsheet cell is black because I am not privy to all of the inputs. And in fact neither are you.<br /><br />Your arguments are all based on having some sort of privileged position in the universe.<br /><br />You are just a bunch of particles subject to the laws the physics, your next state is a function of your current state.<br /><br />Quantum physics is not a free will get out of jail card, it merely says that some of the inputs may be truly random, it does not change the fact that the output state is completely described by the inputs.<br /><br />That we can not in practice and most likely in theory ever be able to model the universe is not an argument for free will, it is just a childish refusal to recognize our non special place in the universe.<br />steve oberskinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9289811708743327442012-11-29T08:42:45.815-05:002012-11-29T08:42:45.815-05:00Thanks, I'll read it tomorrow when I get back ...Thanks, I'll read it tomorrow when I get back from work (won't have time today).Pedronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-19836620635048336352012-11-29T08:22:48.690-05:002012-11-29T08:22:48.690-05:00Here's a fuller version of the argument.
http...Here's a fuller version of the argument.<br /><br />http://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/why-determinism-is-false.htmlLuther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-40778151367840724472012-11-29T08:13:13.345-05:002012-11-29T08:13:13.345-05:00Hum, that's an interesting point. As I said be...Hum, that's an interesting point. As I said before, I'm quite agnostic (and not particularly interested) when it comes to the question of free will, so I have no inbuilt preference for one or the other, but I'd like to see other arguments both pro and con. Anyone?Pedronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27877200972701109702012-11-29T07:41:15.351-05:002012-11-29T07:41:15.351-05:00Think of it this way: the laws of physics determin...Think of it this way: the laws of physics determine which excel cell will be black - and they did so millions of years ago. You have to try to guess - out of an almost infinite number of states of the universe back then, one state the universe was NOT in - the state that would lead to me selecting cell A1 for example. You therefore have an almost infinite number of correct answers and only one wrong answer, and yet the laws of physics seem to have conspired to make you guess wrongly and to pick the very state of the universe that corresponds to the cell that turns black. But this makes no sense unless we attribute consciousness to the laws of physics. We have to see them as some kind of devious prankster otherwise you should be able to guess one of states that correspond to a non-black cell almost every time - exactly the way you would if you didn't tell me your guess.Luther Flinthttp://all-ontologies-blazing.blogspot.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-38845665534006874552012-11-29T07:40:17.691-05:002012-11-29T07:40:17.691-05:00Sorry Andy, didn't see your post. This thread ...Sorry Andy, didn't see your post. This thread is becoming quite unmanageable.Pedronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78081784275703464482012-11-29T07:39:23.523-05:002012-11-29T07:39:23.523-05:00"In my way of looking at the world, what we t..."In my way of looking at the world, what we think of as, in your words, "random events acting on what came before and acted upon by selection, genetic drift, etc." will not always look that way to us. The fact that it does now is not convincing."<br /><br />I don't see any point in invoking anything else. What we know now explains (in general terms) what we see, so I don't see your point.<br /><br />Anyway, we'll see (maybe) how it turns out, but I think no matter what our future versions of evolutionary theory will be you'll still be disappointed ;)Pedronoreply@blogger.com