Dear Mr. Dyson, thank you for doing something that you likely know is futile.
Why do atheists tend to chose what is worse (e.g., GPUs instead of software octree renderers, image-order instead of object-order rendering, a much more demanding approach and therefore pollutant and yet believe in global warming)? Why atheists still haven't understood that horizontal interaction destroys truth (e.g., cf. "How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect"). Why isn't slashdot's sinkhole-ness & idiocy, karma, notation system etc. criticized on scientific grounds? Why did Plato, Leibniz, Newton, Brouwer or Goedel believe in a most high god? Why do people reject ontological arguments? Why do atheists deny religion and at the same time follow twitter/facebook/today's heroes/little green men/Wittgenstein pocket gods or worship Mammon in their love of money? Why are axioms given to believers only? Why are so many convinced that the Higgs boson has been found? Why are researchers loving money more than truth in accepting grants to investigate losing strategies like raycasting?
A tentative reply: The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good. (Psalm 14.1)
With respect.
Grigori Perelman:
Here, the parameter is not time, but scale â" and our space is modeled not by a manifold with a metric, but by a hierarchy of manifolds and metrics connected by the Ricci flow equation.
This mathematics belongs to the new century and the new millennium, but the notion of a hierarchy of metrics would have pleased Riemann. Note that we have a paradox here: the regions that appear to be far from each other at a large distance scale may become close at a smaller distance scale; moreover if we allow Ricci flow through singularities, the regions that are in different connected components at a larger distance scale may become neighboring...
Of course, since their very inception, the U.S.A. are a dictatorship: this is demonstrable with formal rigor, out of their constitution.
Now, what wasn't evident becomes more and more clear.
Poor Americans, if you don't come to democracy, democracy will come to you.
`Is your faith that weak that it could be ruined if you admitted to yourself that Genesis is not a science text and cannot rationally be read literally?': the vast majority dismisses the Tanakh and the Gospels as un-solid, whether frankly or with deceit: that's a reason no to follow that opinion, because in this world, people, by their interactions, aggregate not around truth. For me these books, as `words', contain the most abstract concepts, which when made clear, should be of great benefit for mathematics (is Goldbach's problem solved? and that of the Continuum?). Consider what Perelman said about his trying to explain how could Jesus could walk on the waters (he suggests that he succeeded in his endeavors).
Also, the greatest professed mathematicians were believers, monotheists (and tended to the same One). Among them one finds Pythagoras, Plato (yes he was acquainted with mathematics), Leibniz, Newton, Cantor, Goedel (note that Turing did not make a fundamental discovery, he just gave an adequate definition to the already known concept of `computable function of the integers' through is computors).
It is miraculous that, in spite of entropy, the space-time world more or less maintains itself. Also the cosmological constant should not be made light of; that such constants occur in the accepted theories about space-time, entropy notwithstanding, is miraculous (or, pretty unexpected). Now of course there's that view of Einstein that it was a blunder, it seems no longer to be regarded as such: put that on account of entropy.
"Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.": the believer also believes that he shall be directed in such a way as to pose the right questions and observe the `sufficient and abstract for the question at hand', thus giving him data to construct consistent (with no need for a consistency proof) formal systems or axiomatic theories (which may well not be formal systems): this is most clear in mathematics where the data is a limiting case of objects (pure extensions, sets), but philosophy as an exact science also furnishes such an example (except for its data being more conceptual, meaningual).
Also, as time passes one gets more and more confidence in `For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.' (Luke 8.17) (that saying applies to itself: it is made clearer and clearer by its instances): did you not find strange these?: `But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;' (Matthew 5.44) or `Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:' (Luke 12.51). One explication could be this: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/10/1008636108.full.pdf
Indeed, if you say X and i say not X then at least one of us would be right, so truth is among us (even if your X were `it is not the case that for all X, either X or not X is the case'). So, according to your quotation faith is like science in this regard, in view of its latter half you have to agree that the said quotation is false (for surely, you would not say that science is the denial of observation). Seeing how you agree (cf. the link to the paper above), can I suggest you to question that state of affairs? Who knows, perhaps you are wrong.
`What the f--- does C14 dating have to do with anything?': it has to do with humanity's age, C14 contradicts its being at most 6000 years old.
as for exemplars of vomiture, cf. your preceding opus.
`Evolution is simply a well evidenced scientific theory': and how is this `well evidenced', did you witness the process? if so then you are what you aren't (note that it is no rigor to infer on rock and amber). In any case, Lamarckism is much more natural than Darwinism: are not mutations miracles?
As for Augustine, it is better to believe those that are recorded as having spoken to and heard Jesus in person, as e.g, John, and unlike Augustine (their writings are meaningful: these are not for us mere material heaps, as are fossils).
`That's not true. It only makes it uncreated by a creator. You assume that creation requires a creator. The atheist position is that creation can be spontaneous.'::-)
`It has no whims and no desires. It has no demands and no opinions or thoughts or will': interesting, can one not use an extension to the eminently un-bodily of empirical induction (in view of our being thus), to give some vraisemblance to His existence; or, could it be not frighteningly probable that a Being of which we are but restrictions, actually exists?
`It certainly has no expectation from humans': that's of course very convenient.
`Quite the contrary, it is simply a universe in which things do what the rules force them to do, and we can influence and control what they do if we know those rules by changing the circumstances so the rules force them to act differently.': We are heading to an infinite regress here (as in nihilism), whence these forces?
`he universe and reality is not the god of atheism, it is the SERVANT of atheism': `For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.' (Luke 22.27) & `And he is before all things, and by (through) him all things consist.' (Colossians 1.17)
Slashdot Mirror
What does it mean to be the only begotten Son of God?
Meanings (non-space-time things) are what is invariant. The preoccupation with language is deplorable.
Or is it..?
Dear Mr. Dyson, thank you for doing something that you likely know is futile. Why do atheists tend to chose what is worse (e.g., GPUs instead of software octree renderers, image-order instead of object-order rendering, a much more demanding approach and therefore pollutant and yet believe in global warming)? Why atheists still haven't understood that horizontal interaction destroys truth (e.g., cf. "How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect"). Why isn't slashdot's sinkhole-ness & idiocy, karma, notation system etc. criticized on scientific grounds? Why did Plato, Leibniz, Newton, Brouwer or Goedel believe in a most high god? Why do people reject ontological arguments? Why do atheists deny religion and at the same time follow twitter/facebook/today's heroes/little green men/Wittgenstein pocket gods or worship Mammon in their love of money? Why are axioms given to believers only? Why are so many convinced that the Higgs boson has been found? Why are researchers loving money more than truth in accepting grants to investigate losing strategies like raycasting? A tentative reply: The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good. (Psalm 14.1) With respect.
Yet another way of keeping track of men, from the cradle up.
Grigori Perelman: Here, the parameter is not time, but scale â" and our space is modeled not by a manifold with a metric, but by a hierarchy of manifolds and metrics connected by the Ricci flow equation. This mathematics belongs to the new century and the new millennium, but the notion of a hierarchy of metrics would have pleased Riemann. Note that we have a paradox here: the regions that appear to be far from each other at a large distance scale may become close at a smaller distance scale; moreover if we allow Ricci flow through singularities, the regions that are in different connected components at a larger distance scale may become neighboring...
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/10/1008636108.abstract Reputation, Karma... :-)
Somber days are coming.
NYT and Pentagon work hand in hand.
Being a constitutional dictatorship since 1787, these are but empirical findings supporting a formal proof.
Of course, since their very inception, the U.S.A. are a dictatorship: this is demonstrable with formal rigor, out of their constitution.
Now, what wasn't evident becomes more and more clear.
Poor Americans, if you don't come to democracy, democracy will come to you.
This harks back to GÃdel incompleteness theorems. See Chaitin's results.
Here one can generalize: instead of being improved monkeys we may be restrictions of something higher. And entropy hints at our downward progress.
Quantum theory: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm. But this is much more general.
`Is your faith that weak that it could be ruined if you admitted to yourself that Genesis is not a science text and cannot rationally be read literally?': the vast majority dismisses the Tanakh and the Gospels as un-solid, whether frankly or with deceit: that's a reason no to follow that opinion, because in this world, people, by their interactions, aggregate not around truth. For me these books, as `words', contain the most abstract concepts, which when made clear, should be of great benefit for mathematics (is Goldbach's problem solved? and that of the Continuum?). Consider what Perelman said about his trying to explain how could Jesus could walk on the waters (he suggests that he succeeded in his endeavors). Also, the greatest professed mathematicians were believers, monotheists (and tended to the same One). Among them one finds Pythagoras, Plato (yes he was acquainted with mathematics), Leibniz, Newton, Cantor, Goedel (note that Turing did not make a fundamental discovery, he just gave an adequate definition to the already known concept of `computable function of the integers' through is computors).
It is miraculous that, in spite of entropy, the space-time world more or less maintains itself. Also the cosmological constant should not be made light of; that such constants occur in the accepted theories about space-time, entropy notwithstanding, is miraculous (or, pretty unexpected). Now of course there's that view of Einstein that it was a blunder, it seems no longer to be regarded as such: put that on account of entropy.
Entropy causes degradation, errors. No miracles? then almost all of us are wrong.
...less than 6000.
Humanity's age 6000 years, not earth's.
`And no, you can't manipulate it to get any answer you want.': you literally can; did you know that observation alters the observed (and not only)?
"Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.": the believer also believes that he shall be directed in such a way as to pose the right questions and observe the `sufficient and abstract for the question at hand', thus giving him data to construct consistent (with no need for a consistency proof) formal systems or axiomatic theories (which may well not be formal systems): this is most clear in mathematics where the data is a limiting case of objects (pure extensions, sets), but philosophy as an exact science also furnishes such an example (except for its data being more conceptual, meaningual). Also, as time passes one gets more and more confidence in `For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.' (Luke 8.17) (that saying applies to itself: it is made clearer and clearer by its instances): did you not find strange these?: `But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;' (Matthew 5.44) or `Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:' (Luke 12.51). One explication could be this: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/10/1008636108.full.pdf
Indeed, if you say X and i say not X then at least one of us would be right, so truth is among us (even if your X were `it is not the case that for all X, either X or not X is the case'). So, according to your quotation faith is like science in this regard, in view of its latter half you have to agree that the said quotation is false (for surely, you would not say that science is the denial of observation). Seeing how you agree (cf. the link to the paper above), can I suggest you to question that state of affairs? Who knows, perhaps you are wrong.
`What the f--- does C14 dating have to do with anything?': it has to do with humanity's age, C14 contradicts its being at most 6000 years old. as for exemplars of vomiture, cf. your preceding opus.
`Evolution is simply a well evidenced scientific theory': and how is this `well evidenced', did you witness the process? if so then you are what you aren't (note that it is no rigor to infer on rock and amber). In any case, Lamarckism is much more natural than Darwinism: are not mutations miracles?
As for Augustine, it is better to believe those that are recorded as having spoken to and heard Jesus in person, as e.g, John, and unlike Augustine (their writings are meaningful: these are not for us mere material heaps, as are fossils).
`That's not true. It only makes it uncreated by a creator. You assume that creation requires a creator. The atheist position is that creation can be spontaneous.': :-)
`It has no whims and no desires. It has no demands and no opinions or thoughts or will': interesting, can one not use an extension to the eminently un-bodily of empirical induction (in view of our being thus), to give some vraisemblance to His existence; or, could it be not frighteningly probable that a Being of which we are but restrictions, actually exists?
`It certainly has no expectation from humans': that's of course very convenient.
`Quite the contrary, it is simply a universe in which things do what the rules force them to do, and we can influence and control what they do if we know those rules by changing the circumstances so the rules force them to act differently.': We are heading to an infinite regress here (as in nihilism), whence these forces?
`he universe and reality is not the god of atheism, it is the SERVANT of atheism': `For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.' (Luke 22.27) & `And he is before all things, and by (through) him all things consist.' (Colossians 1.17)
`We are alive because we are made of living cells.': and why are cells living?