>But that person mistakenly thinks that he's getting a worse-than-standard deal.
His standards are higher/different than others. Why settle for what other's consider as "typical"? Why accept what others consider to be acceptable, but you don't?
>So out of ignorance, he leaves a perfectly good job,
Its not ignorance if the person feels that way. Its the way he feels, he has full knowledge of himself.
>Once these paradigms gain some power of prediction, they are no longer labeled as "interpretations".
But isn't that a slippery slope? It could be untestable but as long as it predicts something we can put it into science? Think about how much of religion falls into this (E.g. - I predict if I follow these laws then when I die I will go to heaven.)
>If I label Religion = Reality Interpretation, is religion now an acceptable part of science? >Absolutely not.
Exactly why not? I'm honestly interested in your opinion.
>Quantum mechanics is remarkably effective and complete in its purview, without MWI.
Yes I agree. But scientifically, your statement should end with "so far" because things could change. (Isn't that the strength of the scientific method?)
>Taking MWI (a very small corner of QM, which currently has no influence other than philosophical) to somehow invalidate all of QM is like taking the electric universe hypothesis (which contains some salient points, but is a complete mess logically) to invalidate Maxwell's equations.
Yes but it is a valid method of logical deduction and application of Ocham's Razor to look at what QM leads to and think. (You need this to detect contradictions or to make adjustments in a theory.) MWI is pushing what is considered to be scientific.
The first, first post implied that religion is just to wild and crazy to be part of science. MWI is built on QM which is good science but MWI is also part of science (developed by, written about, talked about at conferences by scientists performing scientific work). Why MWI and not religion?
>given that MWI isn't at this point a testable hypothesis
Then why is it at the scientific tea party? How can you test MWI? Is there a scientifically valid test for MWI? And that testable/untestable part is what I was pointing out.
(Saying that its a "theory"/"hypothesis"/"interpretation" as part of the justification is just a play on words. (E.g. - If I label Religion = Reality Interpretation, is religion now an acceptable part of science?))
>nor is it needed to interpret the extremely detailed, extremely accurate predictions which quantum mechanics (which is what my other post addressed) makes.
But its part of quantum mechanics in the scientific community.
>Until a religion starts making claims about reality that can be falsified.
I never understood this argument as a strike against religion
Theory: Christ existed and said X. (Or use any "Event X occurred.") Test: Build something that can view the past and observe.
Now, we don't have that "something that can view the past" but that doesn't make it less a test. We can't perform the test YET, but there are lots that were accepted as scientific theory based on tests that we couldn't perform yet. (e.g. Theories of life on other planets, quantum theory and I believe that Einstein never performed any tests himself before he proposed something.) In any case, because the test cannot be performed, at the very least, should make the person with the "scientific" mind say "Maybe its correct, maybe its not" even to religous aspects.
>because religion proposes some very complicated, unexplainable, untestable, overreaching essences which science says shouldn't be allowed to the tea party.
(What is the "other hand"? Just interested because you seem to lead to an interesting point and I can't believe that philosphers wouldn't be motivated by something similar.)
>to presume that there is a category of exploration of meaning pre-supposes that there is such a thing, when it is not given.
You don't like the "reason" question because you don't think one of its axiom is valid?
We may or may not be able to find out exactly how the Universe works. Does this make the "science/how" question lesser?
>The point is this: there has never -- never ever ever -- been a single thing that has been taken out of the science basket and put back in the god basket. Not one. Ever. >The traffic is all one way. >So I choose the basket that contains all human knowledge.
What I find interesting, and this happens alot not in just this post, is that people that choose "scientific method" make the choice by non "scientific" ways.
The traffic has been one way, so far. Just as previously, Newton's Three Laws were correct, so far. Now the strength of scientific method is that we keep on looking out for things that would break the theory, testing and keeping an open mind. Yet, when it comes down to it, via non-scientific methods, people make a choice; "I believe in the scientific basket".
>does the fact that we still know about him prove that he isn't right?
Thats what THEY want us to believe!
(Just because they theorize the simulation doesn't mean that hes a threat. He needs to actually prove it to become a threat. What does it mean that no one has done this yet?)
>However, I see a major flaw in your argument: by the same logic, God must want us to kill/steal/{insert sin here} since we have such a strong desire for it.
But there is also a strong sense of remorse and guilt.
And also there is explicit laws against , so it creates an "interesting" situation.
Its too wide of a group; you don't see every musician speak up against the violent rivaly between gangster rappers (or choose your own sub-group of musicians).
Do you feel you need to critize or defend every post on slashdot?
>We've imagined about a million of em. Pick the wrong one and you go to Hell for sure.
Just because you have a lot of non-optimal choices doesn't mean that you don't pick. Example: How do you choose the right wife? Choose wrong and its certain Hell on earth.
1. Party A gets elected. 2. Party A does something that upsets the people so they elect for Party B. 3. Party B does something to upset the people.
In a dual party system Now Party A knows that people can only vote for A or B. Now its Party A turn to get elected, they just needed to wait a little while. In fact, it knew this ever since before 1. ("Hate Party B? You must love Party A!" there is no "Hate both A and B")
In a multi party system Party A doesn't know if its in or not because they have upsetted electorate recently and Party C may get elected. In fact, Party A has known this since before 1. so they may be a little more sensitive to the people. In fact, seeing how many votes Party C, Party D and that crazy-way-out-there Party Z gets will change the way Party A and B acts since these are the votes they want.
Definitely not an acceptable answer to business critical functions.
>Not to mention, you can always, well, download all your mail, documents, calendar items, etc.
You have X employees with Y number of documents/calenders holding business critical data/information. Not only would it cost alot (at the very least employee time lost in the transition) but who is going to check that its correct?
In that you are willing to ignore anything that comes out of MS, regardless of what it is about or how logical it is or what its implications are to you/us. Why do you need another company/third party to validate an argument? You believe its right or, you believe its wrong or you don't know yet. You can depend on blindly trusting or not trusting a third-party to supply your opinion, but why wouldn't you just independently think about what is being presented and not involve that level of trust (either way) at all?
>So, imagine if Google... That would be illegal. But they do not do that.
You set up an imaginary situation, (Google has a monopoly. Google is abusing its monopoly) and then look at reality to see what Google's actions are. Of course they are not abusing their monopoly because they don't have an monopoly to abuse.
>so did IBM and ATT once they got their monopoly. But so far, Google shows NO signs of abuse. In fact, far from it.
Once Google does gets it monopoly, then we can see if they will abuse it. As with IBM, AT&T, Walmart and MS, by the time they do get it, it will be too late.
But thats ok, because the main point there is that we can spend more time bashing Microsoft.
>Google's monopoly is a consumer-supplied monopoly.
So was MS's monopoly at one point in time.
By the time they start the hard-core stuff, its too late. They will be too big for them to do within their ability and not look like illegally strong-arming someone.
But the bigger point that people may not realize is that advertisers control what content is up-front. I think in the USA there are five(?) companies that control the vast majority of news organizations. I think all print-radio-tv-film is controlled/owned by about a dozen?
A lot of websites/newssites are run by the money provided by advertisers. Do you want one company basically controlling these purse strings? Do you want to realize too late that you shouldn't have trusted that one company?
If they can break PGP, then the last thing they want people to know is that they can. They could using this legal judgment to make it look like they can't.
Slashdot Mirror
>But that person mistakenly thinks that he's getting a worse-than-standard deal.
His standards are higher/different than others. Why settle for what other's consider as "typical"? Why accept what others consider to be acceptable, but you don't?
>So out of ignorance, he leaves a perfectly good job,
Its not ignorance if the person feels that way. Its the way he feels, he has full knowledge of himself.
>chasing the mythical perfect job.
Exactly what is wrong with this?
>I have never aged so rapidly as when I've been working for some of the more truly abusive bosses.
I've been through this and this is exactly what it feels like, aging.
At least you know what to look out for now.
>Once these paradigms gain some power of prediction, they are no longer labeled as "interpretations".
But isn't that a slippery slope? It could be untestable but as long as it predicts something we can put it into science? Think about how much of religion falls into this (E.g. - I predict if I follow these laws then when I die I will go to heaven.)
>If I label Religion = Reality Interpretation, is religion now an acceptable part of science?
>Absolutely not.
Exactly why not? I'm honestly interested in your opinion.
>Quantum mechanics is remarkably effective and complete in its purview, without MWI.
Yes I agree. But scientifically, your statement should end with "so far" because things could change. (Isn't that the strength of the scientific method?)
>Taking MWI (a very small corner of QM, which currently has no influence other than philosophical) to somehow invalidate all of QM is like taking the electric universe hypothesis (which contains some salient points, but is a complete mess logically) to invalidate Maxwell's equations.
Yes but it is a valid method of logical deduction and application of Ocham's Razor to look at what QM leads to and think. (You need this to detect contradictions or to make adjustments in a theory.) MWI is pushing what is considered to be scientific.
The first, first post implied that religion is just to wild and crazy to be part of science. MWI is built on QM which is good science but MWI is also part of science (developed by, written about, talked about at conferences by scientists performing scientific work). Why MWI and not religion?
>given that MWI isn't at this point a testable hypothesis
Then why is it at the scientific tea party? How can you test MWI? Is there a scientifically valid test for MWI? And that testable/untestable part is what I was pointing out.
(Saying that its a "theory"/"hypothesis"/"interpretation" as part of the justification is just a play on words. (E.g. - If I label Religion = Reality Interpretation, is religion now an acceptable part of science?))
>nor is it needed to interpret the extremely detailed, extremely accurate predictions which quantum mechanics (which is what my other post addressed) makes.
But its part of quantum mechanics in the scientific community.
Please post a scientifically valid test for the Everett-Wheeler interpretation.
>Until a religion starts making claims about reality that can be falsified.
I never understood this argument as a strike against religion
Theory: Christ existed and said X. (Or use any "Event X occurred.")
Test: Build something that can view the past and observe.
Now, we don't have that "something that can view the past" but that doesn't make it less a test. We can't perform the test YET, but there are lots that were accepted as scientific theory based on tests that we couldn't perform yet. (e.g. Theories of life on other planets, quantum theory and I believe that Einstein never performed any tests himself before he proposed something.)
In any case, because the test cannot be performed, at the very least, should make the person with the "scientific" mind say "Maybe its correct, maybe its not" even to religous aspects.
>because religion proposes some very complicated, unexplainable, untestable, overreaching essences which science says shouldn't be allowed to the tea party.
Read up on quantum mechanics much?
>On the one hand, scientists,
.)
(What is the "other hand"? Just interested because you seem to lead to an interesting point and I can't believe that philosphers wouldn't be motivated by something similar
>to presume that there is a category of exploration of meaning pre-supposes that there is such a thing, when it is not given.
You don't like the "reason" question because you don't think one of its axiom is valid?
We may or may not be able to find out exactly how the Universe works. Does this make the "science/how" question lesser?
>"Why" still presupposes that there is a purpose for everything.
I don't see that.
Why did that happen?
Answer: There isn't any reason why it happened. There was no purpose to why it occurred.
>As the original poster pointed out, as more and more evidence is collected the need for gods, ghosts, and goblins declines and never increases.
Actually, it ("the need for goblins" or in other words "unexplained observations") just gets pushed out further to the bleeding-edge of science.
>But why does there need to be a reason? Can things simply not be ?
The same reason why scientists need to run around and find out 'how'.
>The point is this: there has never -- never ever ever -- been a single thing that has been taken out of the science basket and put back in the god basket. Not one. Ever.
>The traffic is all one way.
>So I choose the basket that contains all human knowledge.
What I find interesting, and this happens alot not in just this post, is that people that choose "scientific method" make the choice by non "scientific" ways.
The traffic has been one way, so far. Just as previously, Newton's Three Laws were correct, so far.
Now the strength of scientific method is that we keep on looking out for things that would break the theory, testing and keeping an open mind.
Yet, when it comes down to it, via non-scientific methods, people make a choice; "I believe in the scientific basket".
>does the fact that we still know about him prove that he isn't right?
Thats what THEY want us to believe!
(Just because they theorize the simulation doesn't mean that hes a threat. He needs to actually prove it to become a threat. What does it mean that no one has done this yet?)
>However, I see a major flaw in your argument: by the same logic, God must want us to kill/steal/{insert sin here} since we have such a strong desire for it.
But there is also a strong sense of remorse and guilt.
And also there is explicit laws against , so it creates an "interesting" situation.
Its too wide of a group; you don't see every musician speak up against the violent rivaly between gangster rappers (or choose your own sub-group of musicians).
Do you feel you need to critize or defend every post on slashdot?
>We've imagined about a million of em. Pick the wrong one and you go to Hell for sure.
Just because you have a lot of non-optimal choices doesn't mean that you don't pick. Example: How do you choose the right wife? Choose wrong and its certain Hell on earth.
It doesn't matter.
1. Party A gets elected.
2. Party A does something that upsets the people so they elect for Party B.
3. Party B does something to upset the people.
In a dual party system
Now Party A knows that people can only vote for A or B. Now its Party A turn to get elected, they just needed to wait a little while. In fact, it knew this ever since before 1. ("Hate Party B? You must love Party A!" there is no "Hate both A and B")
In a multi party system
Party A doesn't know if its in or not because they have upsetted electorate recently and Party C may get elected. In fact, Party A has known this since before 1. so they may be a little more sensitive to the people. In fact, seeing how many votes Party C, Party D and that crazy-way-out-there Party Z gets will change the way Party A and B acts since these are the votes they want.
Thats what I imagine what Mother Nature is saying about us.
"THAT'S what you consider as an example of intelligence?!?!?"
>Sure, it could,
>it seems unlikely
>More likely,
Definitely not an acceptable answer to business critical functions.
>Not to mention, you can always, well, download all your mail, documents, calendar items, etc.
You have X employees with Y number of documents/calenders holding business critical data/information. Not only would it cost alot (at the very least employee time lost in the transition) but who is going to check that its correct?
>In what way, is MS being bashed?
... That would be illegal. But they do not do that.
In that you are willing to ignore anything that comes out of MS, regardless of what it is about or how logical it is or what its implications are to you/us. Why do you need another company/third party to validate an argument? You believe its right or, you believe its wrong or you don't know yet. You can depend on blindly trusting or not trusting a third-party to supply your opinion, but why wouldn't you just independently think about what is being presented and not involve that level of trust (either way) at all?
>So, imagine if Google
You set up an imaginary situation, (Google has a monopoly. Google is abusing its monopoly) and then look at reality to see what Google's actions are.
Of course they are not abusing their monopoly because they don't have an monopoly to abuse.
>Google does not have a monopoly.
>so did IBM and ATT once they got their monopoly. But so far, Google shows NO signs of abuse. In fact, far from it.
Once Google does gets it monopoly, then we can see if they will abuse it. As with IBM, AT&T, Walmart and MS, by the time they do get it, it will be too late.
But thats ok, because the main point there is that we can spend more time bashing Microsoft.
>Google's monopoly is a consumer-supplied monopoly.
So was MS's monopoly at one point in time.
By the time they start the hard-core stuff, its too late. They will be too big for them to do within their ability and not look like illegally strong-arming someone.
But the bigger point that people may not realize is that advertisers control what content is up-front. I think in the USA there are five(?) companies that control the vast majority of news organizations. I think all print-radio-tv-film is controlled/owned by about a dozen?
A lot of websites/newssites are run by the money provided by advertisers. Do you want one company basically controlling these purse strings? Do you want to realize too late that you shouldn't have trusted that one company?
Exactly where was this impartial piece of wisdom when MS was/is on trial?
Thanks. Not sure why I missed this point the first time looking at Truecrypt.
If they can break PGP, then the last thing they want people to know is that they can.
They could using this legal judgment to make it look like they can't.