Right. The entire topic is outside the realm of science. If you're talking about something untestable (and nothing that could be seriously considered a god would submit to being testable) then you're not talking about science.
The funny thing is, if these religious pseudo-scientists really did come up with a scientific theory of god (not likely) then god would no longer be god - god would merely be a part of the universe. By definition, gods ghosts and tooth fairies are supernatural and therefore have nothing to do with science (which only deals with things that are "natural," ie "part of the physical universe," ie "real").
I'm in complete agreement. I keep asking the same questions, but have never heard a logical explanation for either theism or atheism.
Of course, I personally don't find this surprising, because I don't think such explanations are possible. What I do find surprising is that people still believe in such things (sometimes quite vocally) when they don't even have a cogent reason to.
You've just explained why agnosticism is the only sensible philosophy. We can't prove or disprove the existence of God, so why even bother with the idea? It's pointless.
What evidence implies that self awareness requires anything outside of the visible universe?
Think about it - throughout human history everything complicated has been explained as an "act of God" until we gained enough knowledge to understand it. The motions of the planets, how reproduction works, how species change over time, etc. Right now we don't understand how the physical brain causes the sensation of "consciousness," but do you really think that it can't be explained without invoking the supernatural?
I'm still holding out for valve to realease a non-steam single player version of the game. If it doesn't show up in a few months though, I'll be looking for a cracked version too. I assume there's probably already one out there.
Just to make that more clear, ahem, "THERE IS A GAME THAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY FOR, BUT I WOULD RATHER PIRATE IT THAN ACCEPT ONLINE AUTHENTICATION!"
Oops, sorry for the screaming. When everything starts using online authentication, I hope everybody else gets as pissed off as I am.
I'm pretty sure they want to require decryption INSIDE the display device (TV/Monitor). It may still be possible with hardware hacking, but I don't know how hard that would be.
Besides, if I buy a disc full of data, I expect to be able to read that data (the real data, not an encrypted version of it - I paid for a movie not for a bunch of useless bits). This is total bullshit.
What are you going to do, point a camcorder at your TV? AFAIK the decryption hardware is required to be inside the TV itself. I suppose you could mod a TV and tap into the decrypted video stream before it's actually displayed, but I don't know if that's possible.
Exactly. I'm *not* interested in pirating movies. Most movies (even good ones) are not worth owning, IMO, because I can just rent them when I want to see them. There are a few movies, however, that I would like to own a copy of so that I can watch them whenever I wish.
BUT - I don't consider having a bunch of encrypted data that I can't read to be ownership. In other words, I'm not going to buy an HD-DVD disc unless I know I can decrypt it into a usable data format. Not for piracy issues, but for whatever use I decide to put it to. I may want to reedit the movie for my own use. I may want to cut out the trailers/commercials. I may want to make a backup copy. I may want to translate it to a different format in 20 years when HD-DVD players don't exist anymore.
Yeah, yeah, if I have access to the data then it's *possible* for me to use it unlawfully. So what? Until I actually break the law you can mind your own damn business.
OK, sorry again about the "crazy talk." Just wanted to catch your attention.;)
If people would learn to stretch their imaginations, not to readily limit themselves and write off whole portions of potential truths as rubbish or insanity, they may very well surprise themselves.
I never advocated such an idea. What I said was that science is the most powerful tool that I know of. I would certainly not discourage anyone from imagining things which we think are wrong or impossible - imagination and creativity are the very things that bring us knowledge! The thing that I think you are missing is the filter - you can imagine anything, but you have to then separate the useful hypotheses from the not so useful. How do you do that? Science! Science is all about letting multiple ideas duke it out to find out which is the "best" according to the principles of logic. Maybe this isn't the best way to understand the universe, but I haven't heard of a better idea!
No universe exists without consciousness
I can't think of any reason to believe that. I would say that the reverse *is* true, however.
Understand consciousness and you will understand "you." Once you've done that, the full gamut of the universe's wisdom -- independent of time and space -- may become yours in an instant.
So you're saying that if I understood consciousness I would understand the rest of the universe? How does that make any sense? Perhaps when you say "understand" you mean something other than I do. I would say that one who "understands" consciousness has a well tested theory that explains consciousness. This doesn't automatically bring a person the "full gamut of the universe's wisdom."
I think you misunderstood points B) and C), also. Let me explain: B. Science is the most powerful (if not the only) tool that we have for discovering possible truths about the universe. Notice that I said "that we have." I didn't say that science is the best and only tool, I said that noone has demonstrated a better one. Big difference. C. Anybody who is out to discover absolute truth is wasting their time. Notice that I did not say that there is no absolute truth. I'm saying that, according to the incompleteness theorem that started this whole exchange, you cannot prove every truth in the universe. Universal truths may exist, but they're logically unreachable and therefore a waste of time to pursue.
Oh, and I'll happily agree that "most of what you say, everything you say are mere theories" - in fact, I'll say that "mere" theories are the most powerful statements that can be made. They're all we've got, really.
You started out making sense, but then you ended up talking crazy talk.
First off, just so you know where I'm coming from, I consider myself to be a scientist. My entire philosophy and everything that I know is based on science. This is not because of some sort of fundamental devotion - it is because I haven't discovered a more useful way of looking at things.
OK, so Godel's theorem shows that for any sufficiently powerful logical system, there are truths about that system that are not theorems. So what? You seem to think it's a big deal that science can't prove/discover everything that is true about the universe. Luckily for scientists, we don't fool ourselves by thinking that such a thing is possible. I accept the fact that science is weak. I accept the fact that there are truths that cannot be discovered. Science is a tool whereby we can make useful generalizations about that which we perceive. Can you think of anything more powerful than that? I can't.
Sorry about the "crazy talk" accusation, but that stuff you got into at the end just makes no sense. If a savant has a photographic memory or can make calculations very quickly, what has that got to do with science explaining the universe? Did the savant "tap into" some truth about the universe that is inaccessible to science? Think about it - brains are powered by the laws of physics. The fact that the savant's brain "tapped into" that particular truth means that that truth *is* provable. The savant proved it!
More generally, all brains are bound by the very same rules that science is. Why should a Zen master's brain be able to violate Godel's incompleteness theorem, when science cannot? The only way to justify such a claim would be to invoke magic.
What is my point? My point is this: A. Science cannot prove all truths about the universe. B. Science is the most powerful (if not the only) tool that we have for discovering possible truths about the universe. C. Anybody who is out to discover absolute truth is wasting their time.
Mr. Tortise says that the average lay person could not understand the first five pages of Godel, Escher, Bach if their life depended on it.
Achilles says, 'I think you mean "couldn't be bothered to" rather than "could not." In my experience most people are guilty of lack or interest rather than actual stupidity.'
Yeah, but 8 track tapes still work, if you have a player. If I buy a copy of HL2 that has to phone home in order to work, then chances are I won't be able to use it at some point in the future, even if my old computer still works. That's the difference, and that's one of the reasons why DRM is totally unacceptable.
Basically you're renting the data, but the producers pretend like you're still "buying" it (and still charge accordingly).
No, you're wrong. DRM decryption and D to A conversion could be done on the same chip. Unless you actually modify that chip, you can't tap into the unencrypted digitized data.
This may sound unrealistic, but it's what's being proposed. Don't be surprised when your HDDVD/BluRay player won't output an unencrypted digital signal. Expect to have to buy a new TV with decryption capabilities. Seriously.
Woah, hold up there pilgrim. We like Valve? Aren't we all still boycotting HL2? Surely "we" aren't going to tolerate software that insists on phoning home before it will operate correctly!
Seriously, I hope people aren't condoning this. I waited for years for HL2, and now I'm waiting for the non-steam single player version - which isn't likely to surface if everybody just buys the crippled version regardless.
You're missing the point. Copying data that you own is NOT illegal. Distributing it and selling it may be illegal, if the data is copyrighted.
Inside of my sandbox, I can do anything I want with that data. Not only is this not illegal, it's not even anyone's business but mine. If media companies are going to include DRM along with the data, I'm going to consider it a trojan horse.
I think it's the other way around. Video is 30fps (this is a slight simplification, since it's interlaced), film is 24fps. Both of these rates are a bit too slow, too. Ever notice the choppyness during a quick pan in a movie? I don't know why we don't double the frame rate for film.
As for games, choppyness becomes a *lot* more obvious when you're the one controlling the camera. 60fps is probably the minimum allowable for "smooth" gameplay. You can play at less than that, but you'll notice the chop.
Slashdot Mirror
The funny thing is, if these religious pseudo-scientists really did come up with a scientific theory of god (not likely) then god would no longer be god - god would merely be a part of the universe. By definition, gods ghosts and tooth fairies are supernatural and therefore have nothing to do with science (which only deals with things that are "natural," ie "part of the physical universe," ie "real").
Of course, I personally don't find this surprising, because I don't think such explanations are possible. What I do find surprising is that people still believe in such things (sometimes quite vocally) when they don't even have a cogent reason to.
Think about it - throughout human history everything complicated has been explained as an "act of God" until we gained enough knowledge to understand it. The motions of the planets, how reproduction works, how species change over time, etc. Right now we don't understand how the physical brain causes the sensation of "consciousness," but do you really think that it can't be explained without invoking the supernatural?
Just to make that more clear, ahem, "THERE IS A GAME THAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY FOR, BUT I WOULD RATHER PIRATE IT THAN ACCEPT ONLINE AUTHENTICATION!"
Oops, sorry for the screaming. When everything starts using online authentication, I hope everybody else gets as pissed off as I am.
Besides, if I buy a disc full of data, I expect to be able to read that data (the real data, not an encrypted version of it - I paid for a movie not for a bunch of useless bits). This is total bullshit.
BUT - I don't consider having a bunch of encrypted data that I can't read to be ownership. In other words, I'm not going to buy an HD-DVD disc unless I know I can decrypt it into a usable data format. Not for piracy issues, but for whatever use I decide to put it to. I may want to reedit the movie for my own use. I may want to cut out the trailers/commercials. I may want to make a backup copy. I may want to translate it to a different format in 20 years when HD-DVD players don't exist anymore.
Yeah, yeah, if I have access to the data then it's *possible* for me to use it unlawfully. So what? Until I actually break the law you can mind your own damn business.
And yes, I also consider myself to be a star wars fan. I used to be a real star wars fan - now I'm just a bitter fan of the original trilogy.
Oh yeah, all we have are theories.
OK, sorry again about the "crazy talk." Just wanted to catch your attention. ;)
I never advocated such an idea. What I said was that science is the most powerful tool that I know of. I would certainly not discourage anyone from imagining things which we think are wrong or impossible - imagination and creativity are the very things that bring us knowledge! The thing that I think you are missing is the filter - you can imagine anything, but you have to then separate the useful hypotheses from the not so useful. How do you do that? Science! Science is all about letting multiple ideas duke it out to find out which is the "best" according to the principles of logic. Maybe this isn't the best way to understand the universe, but I haven't heard of a better idea!
I can't think of any reason to believe that. I would say that the reverse *is* true, however.
So you're saying that if I understood consciousness I would understand the rest of the universe? How does that make any sense? Perhaps when you say "understand" you mean something other than I do. I would say that one who "understands" consciousness has a well tested theory that explains consciousness. This doesn't automatically bring a person the "full gamut of the universe's wisdom."I think you misunderstood points B) and C), also. Let me explain:
B. Science is the most powerful (if not the only) tool that we have for discovering possible truths about the universe.
Notice that I said "that we have." I didn't say that science is the best and only tool, I said that noone has demonstrated a better one. Big difference.
C. Anybody who is out to discover absolute truth is wasting their time.
Notice that I did not say that there is no absolute truth. I'm saying that, according to the incompleteness theorem that started this whole exchange, you cannot prove every truth in the universe. Universal truths may exist, but they're logically unreachable and therefore a waste of time to pursue.
Oh, and I'll happily agree that "most of what you say, everything you say are mere theories" - in fact, I'll say that "mere" theories are the most powerful statements that can be made. They're all we've got, really.
First off, just so you know where I'm coming from, I consider myself to be a scientist. My entire philosophy and everything that I know is based on science. This is not because of some sort of fundamental devotion - it is because I haven't discovered a more useful way of looking at things.
OK, so Godel's theorem shows that for any sufficiently powerful logical system, there are truths about that system that are not theorems. So what? You seem to think it's a big deal that science can't prove/discover everything that is true about the universe. Luckily for scientists, we don't fool ourselves by thinking that such a thing is possible. I accept the fact that science is weak. I accept the fact that there are truths that cannot be discovered. Science is a tool whereby we can make useful generalizations about that which we perceive. Can you think of anything more powerful than that? I can't.
Sorry about the "crazy talk" accusation, but that stuff you got into at the end just makes no sense. If a savant has a photographic memory or can make calculations very quickly, what has that got to do with science explaining the universe? Did the savant "tap into" some truth about the universe that is inaccessible to science? Think about it - brains are powered by the laws of physics. The fact that the savant's brain "tapped into" that particular truth means that that truth *is* provable. The savant proved it!
More generally, all brains are bound by the very same rules that science is. Why should a Zen master's brain be able to violate Godel's incompleteness theorem, when science cannot? The only way to justify such a claim would be to invoke magic.
What is my point? My point is this:
A. Science cannot prove all truths about the universe.
B. Science is the most powerful (if not the only) tool that we have for discovering possible truths about the universe.
C. Anybody who is out to discover absolute truth is wasting their time.
Achilles says, 'I think you mean "couldn't be bothered to" rather than "could not." In my experience most people are guilty of lack or interest rather than actual stupidity.'
Basically you're renting the data, but the producers pretend like you're still "buying" it (and still charge accordingly).
This may sound unrealistic, but it's what's being proposed. Don't be surprised when your HDDVD/BluRay player won't output an unencrypted digital signal. Expect to have to buy a new TV with decryption capabilities. Seriously.
Seriously, I hope people aren't condoning this. I waited for years for HL2, and now I'm waiting for the non-steam single player version - which isn't likely to surface if everybody just buys the crippled version regardless.
Inside of my sandbox, I can do anything I want with that data. Not only is this not illegal, it's not even anyone's business but mine. If media companies are going to include DRM along with the data, I'm going to consider it a trojan horse.
No, that's not really my pet's name.
Then again, the same ideas are easily extended to electronic communications.
As for games, choppyness becomes a *lot* more obvious when you're the one controlling the camera. 60fps is probably the minimum allowable for "smooth" gameplay. You can play at less than that, but you'll notice the chop.