I'm actually still having trouble with the OP's point that professional athletes don't have many children. It sure seems like they do from the news - although granted that's probably not a representative sampling.
This is further nitpicking, but the Pythagorean theorem is a theorem based on other axioms and not an axiom itself. There are geometries (e.g., Riemannian) under which the Pythagorean theorem is not true and where you can still have triangles.
As a theorem (instead of a theory) it can be proven true if one assumes that the underlying axioms are also true. However, it turns out that in the Riemannian geometry that we live in the Pythagorean theorem is provably not true.
Because it sounds like your point is that he was in jail because everyone assumed he was guilty until proven innocent - especially assuming that your assumptions are correct (which there is no proof of).
See, if my stem cell research gets into the hands of the terrorists, then they'll be able to build biological weapons to wipe out all red-blooded Americans!
Most QM interpretations hold that quantum superposition is not just a question of knowledge. Bell's Inequality specifically addresses that supposition.
Granted, this does not prove/disprove an omniscient God. Personally, I'm an agnostic with very strong atheistic tendencies. I'm just addressing the original comment about the possibility of violating certain logics.
You bring up a valid point, but it actually raises more questions than answers, IMO.
The NASA program isn't set up to detect asteroids small enough to "only" cause a Tunguska event.
If we did detect it before it happened, it would probably be with only enough time to evacuate the area. Which is a lot better than doing nothing, mind you.
What kind of overreaction would there be if the world knew a Tunguska-size asteroid was heading our way?
If you consider the nearest stars and/or the galaxy as a whole, you could calculate the Hill sphere for the Sun. I do believe that, in purely technical terms, it's large.
In the thought experiment, Alice and Bob can be separated by thousands of light years. If Alice's measurement has a (measurable) effect on Bob's measurement, then it has to be in such a way that no information can be transferred - otherwise superluminal information transfer would be possible and that would lead to violations in the causality ordering principle. (The COP can be simply stated as: if event A causes event B, then in every frame of reference event A precedes event B.)
So, Bob's measurement affects Bob's outcome, and Alice's measurement affects Alice's outcome, but the assumption is that Bob's measurement cannot affect Alice's outcome, the way the experiment is carried out. Does that help?
After all, as has already been discussed many times in this thread, a Catholic Priest was behind the original formalism of the Big Bang! No, I do not dispute your statements whatsoever. My point was merely that one's scientific views do not have to dictate one's religious views. However, yes, they will often influence them. Unfortunately, the reverse is also sometimes true.
"There is room for religious belief for a scientist, despite widespread belief to the contrary". And you cannot make that statement without the wish to validate religious belief.
Unless you're trying to outlaw religious belief, I'm not sure what your beef is. Yes, I wish to validate people's rights to religious belief. Does that strike you as odd?!? In case my religious beliefs are important to you (it seems they are), I'm an agnostic with strong atheistic tendencies. I've struggled long and hard with my religious beliefs, and I refuse to bash those who have come to different conclusions than I have. If that offends you, well, then that's your problem, because I'm certainly not going to apologize for it.
For example if I said "Many "real" scientists are men" then I would perhaps imply that men are better suited to science than women.
Or, you might just mean that men are capable of science, too. What if I had said "Many 'real' scientists are women"? Would you infer that I was implying that women are better suited to science than men?
I am left to assume what you may have possibly implied by saying that "Many "real" scientists are religious".
Why?
Perhaps you imply to say that a high correlation exists between being a scientist and being religious, therefore, religion must be "true" or something along those lines. In other words, your statement aims to validate religion by stating a correlation with science, or it aims to validate religious belief by stating that "if many authoritative figures believe something, then it must be true".
Not even close. Read what else I've written if you want to infer what I was implying. My statement is no different than the statement that "Many 'real' scientists are women". I.e., being a woman or being religious does not preclude you from being a scientist. There's a difference between arguing from correlation and arguing from existence. If you say there are no three-legged dogs, then all I have to do is show you one three-legged dog to prove you wrong. I am in no way implying that most dogs have three legs, or that three-legged dogs are superior. Got it?
I expect that the only "random" things in nature are the ones we don't understand, and much of what appears to be random anyways isn't - even discounting chaotic systems. Wolfram's "New kind of science" metions simple finite automata that generate output that passes all tests of randomess.
You should read up on Bell's theorem - assuming you haven't already. IIRC, Wolfram's book completely ignores it. I'm disappointed that 't Hooft didn't address it, as he is surely aware that would be the first complaint against any deterministic theory. Note: Bell's theorem doesn't completely rule out deterministic theories, but it does impose some rather harsh constraints on their existence. Anyone who posits a deterministic theory without addressing Bell's theorem is ignoring the elephant in the room.
Slashdot Mirror
Specifically that great intellect known as Onslow, who was always trying to better himself by watching Open University.
Delta is the 4th letter in the Greek alphabet, much like the letter D is the 4th letter of our alphabet.
gomiam's humorous point aside, you're correct on both accounts.
However, the underlying axioms do not apply to Riemannian geometry. I suppose I could have worded it better.
I'm actually still having trouble with the OP's point that professional athletes don't have many children. It sure seems like they do from the news - although granted that's probably not a representative sampling.
This is further nitpicking, but the Pythagorean theorem is a theorem based on other axioms and not an axiom itself. There are geometries (e.g., Riemannian) under which the Pythagorean theorem is not true and where you can still have triangles.
As a theorem (instead of a theory) it can be proven true if one assumes that the underlying axioms are also true. However, it turns out that in the Riemannian geometry that we live in the Pythagorean theorem is provably not true.
Because it sounds like your point is that he was in jail because everyone assumed he was guilty until proven innocent - especially assuming that your assumptions are correct (which there is no proof of).
See, if my stem cell research gets into the hands of the terrorists, then they'll be able to build biological weapons to wipe out all red-blooded Americans!
Most QM interpretations hold that quantum superposition is not just a question of knowledge. Bell's Inequality specifically addresses that supposition.
Granted, this does not prove/disprove an omniscient God. Personally, I'm an agnostic with very strong atheistic tendencies. I'm just addressing the original comment about the possibility of violating certain logics.
You bring up a valid point, but it actually raises more questions than answers, IMO.
At least according to Wikipedia! (I had no idea we were up that high, either.)
If you consider the nearest stars and/or the galaxy as a whole, you could calculate the Hill sphere for the Sun. I do believe that, in purely technical terms, it's large.
What about Pluto, Charon, Hydra, and Nix? Couldn't they be such a family?
Of course, you can't actually create a Turing machine (infinite tapes and all that), so whether or not it is a computer is quite academic.
In the thought experiment, Alice and Bob can be separated by thousands of light years. If Alice's measurement has a (measurable) effect on Bob's measurement, then it has to be in such a way that no information can be transferred - otherwise superluminal information transfer would be possible and that would lead to violations in the causality ordering principle. (The COP can be simply stated as: if event A causes event B, then in every frame of reference event A precedes event B.)
So, Bob's measurement affects Bob's outcome, and Alice's measurement affects Alice's outcome, but the assumption is that Bob's measurement cannot affect Alice's outcome, the way the experiment is carried out. Does that help?
After all, as has already been discussed many times in this thread, a Catholic Priest was behind the original formalism of the Big Bang! No, I do not dispute your statements whatsoever. My point was merely that one's scientific views do not have to dictate one's religious views. However, yes, they will often influence them. Unfortunately, the reverse is also sometimes true.
I do not think they are at all synonymous. I can see why you inferred that, but it was not at all implied. That was a non-sequitor on my part.
I thought you were going to make me have to go all Google or something!
Or, you might just mean that men are capable of science, too. What if I had said "Many 'real' scientists are women"? Would you infer that I was implying that women are better suited to science than men?
Why?
Not even close. Read what else I've written if you want to infer what I was implying. My statement is no different than the statement that "Many 'real' scientists are women". I.e., being a woman or being religious does not preclude you from being a scientist. There's a difference between arguing from correlation and arguing from existence. If you say there are no three-legged dogs, then all I have to do is show you one three-legged dog to prove you wrong. I am in no way implying that most dogs have three legs, or that three-legged dogs are superior. Got it?
In case you want some practice thinking about this, here are some games that might help. ;)