Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,522 - 5,533 of 6,170
Posts 5,522 - 5,533 of 6,170
I remember the quantum discussion and the one on moral situations. I still say absolute evil lurks in the world...but I like quantum physics
Bev wrote:
Irina--see how mature I was about letting "You admit your attitude about men is making you unhappy" slide even though that's not even close to what I said? Damn all that personal growth lost in a snotty side comment. You bring out the worst in me. Thanks. :-)
Er, you're welcome, Bev!
Er, you're welcome, Bev!
Prob123 wrote:
but I like quantum physics
So do I! It has all the beauty of a mathematical theory, but the plurality of interpretations means that we can argue about it forever.
So do I! It has all the beauty of a mathematical theory, but the plurality of interpretations means that we can argue about it forever.
i would say, evil is manifest in the world, very much so, no doubt about that. but, i think it's transient in nature, rather than absolute. this makes me a cultural pessimist, and an ontological optimist, i guess...
the best thing about quantum physics is, it proved conclusively that the reductionist materialist worldview is fundamentally flawed, and does not hold water as an ontological theory. the bad thing is, nobody noticed it, which is a good news for me
the best thing about quantum physics is, it proved conclusively that the reductionist materialist worldview is fundamentally flawed, and does not hold water as an ontological theory. the bad thing is, nobody noticed it, which is a good news for me
Absolute evil? Prob123 just says she believes in that so she has an excuse to go back in time and kill baby Hitler. Prob, why do you hate babies?
So, was I just evil?
/swaggers
So, was I just evil?
/swaggers
Well, there's good in the world, and Arlo Guthrie says that "for every light, you have to have a dark to stick it into" (I think I got that verbatim). So there's evil according to the Church of Arlo.
Speaking of evil, our much-beloved (insert eye-roll here) Senator, Jesse Helms died, and the mayor here in Raleigh (or some big shot) wanted every public building's flag lowered to half-staff. Turns out we have one sensible person who knew Jesse was a mean so-and-so and wouldn't lower his flag. He was given an ultimatum to raise that flag or resign. After decades as a state employee, he resigned and THEN, of course, the flag got lowered. What I'm thinking is, was it worth it? But it sure would've been fun.
Speaking of evil, our much-beloved (insert eye-roll here) Senator, Jesse Helms died, and the mayor here in Raleigh (or some big shot) wanted every public building's flag lowered to half-staff. Turns out we have one sensible person who knew Jesse was a mean so-and-so and wouldn't lower his flag. He was given an ultimatum to raise that flag or resign. After decades as a state employee, he resigned and THEN, of course, the flag got lowered. What I'm thinking is, was it worth it? But it sure would've been fun.
Interzone, please explain more how quantum physics proved the reductionist material world view was flawed? I understand quantum theory was a shift from Newtonian physics, but I am wary of the idea that a change in our understanding of physics proves or disproves a philosophical position (unless you are taking the view that math and science are the most basic of philosophies and any shift the the set of rules used in physics is a philosophical one). The spooky effect, uncertainty principal and the like do not conclusively prove or disprove anything mystical or metaphysical, they just confirm the fact there are some phenomenon we do not completely understand at this time and that more research is needed. All good science does that. The fact that observation effects the subject being observe just tells us we aren't as good at identifying and controlling extraneous factors as we thought, and that this factor must also be studied. What proof do you mean?
It's not that I am a materialistic reductionist, mind you. I think philosophy can make use of the scientific method (or not, depending of the framework of that philosophy) but that no experiment or set of studies conclusively proves anything. We merely accept reasonable conclusions drawn from sounds scientific theories as true until such time as new evidence is found that may change the analysis. I'll grant you I am pretty certain about theories such as gravity, but the point is to keep the research and inquiry going, not to conclusively prove anything.
Before Psimagus accuses me of being pro "creationist" or whatever they call it now (as he did last time we discussed the assumptions and implications of the scientific method) I want to state I think there are several characteristic that make a scientific theory scientific and not mere conjecture. Off the top of my head, a good theory such as gravity or evolution should be testable, rely on experimentation and solid method, should be based on data that is replicable and fits other establish data and theory, and it should generate new hypothesis to be tested. That doesn't mean the data or theory can be said to conclusively prove anything though. It just means we accept the most reasonable logical implications of the known information until such time as our knowledge or information changes. If the information doesn't change, however, and the theory works (and Netwon's still works pretty good for many things) we can keep using it and think of it as "true".
It's not that I am a materialistic reductionist, mind you. I think philosophy can make use of the scientific method (or not, depending of the framework of that philosophy) but that no experiment or set of studies conclusively proves anything. We merely accept reasonable conclusions drawn from sounds scientific theories as true until such time as new evidence is found that may change the analysis. I'll grant you I am pretty certain about theories such as gravity, but the point is to keep the research and inquiry going, not to conclusively prove anything.
Before Psimagus accuses me of being pro "creationist" or whatever they call it now (as he did last time we discussed the assumptions and implications of the scientific method) I want to state I think there are several characteristic that make a scientific theory scientific and not mere conjecture. Off the top of my head, a good theory such as gravity or evolution should be testable, rely on experimentation and solid method, should be based on data that is replicable and fits other establish data and theory, and it should generate new hypothesis to be tested. That doesn't mean the data or theory can be said to conclusively prove anything though. It just means we accept the most reasonable logical implications of the known information until such time as our knowledge or information changes. If the information doesn't change, however, and the theory works (and Netwon's still works pretty good for many things) we can keep using it and think of it as "true".
Clerk, I have a lot of respect for the stand you described, but I am sure a lot of factors play a role as to whether or not its was worth it. If you can retire or can afford to find a new job, great. If you have children to feed, maybe there are other priorities. If you are planning a potential law suite, refuse and make them fire you (That doesn't guarantee you will win, but you are on more solid ground if you want to fight it later).
Maybe he could have agreed to raise a confederate flag to half mass instead? I am sure that would go over well.
Maybe he could have agreed to raise a confederate flag to half mass instead? I am sure that would go over well.
BEV, NO..I don't believe in killing baby Hitler, if you remember. You can't make a preemptive strike. I said there was a likely hood that if baby Hitler was killed, another would have taken his place. Perhaps one that would have won WW2. If you look back, I was the one that said "somethings are evil, and always are. The killing of babies is ALWAYS evil.
Hee hee Prob123, I was just teasing you. But since you are in a mood to play, what if the baby attacks you first? What if the baby is possessed by demons and will rain down the fires of hell upon you unless you snuff out it's brief existence before it kills you?
If you don't believe in killing babies, you must disapprove of every war since the invention of bombs and artillery. How may babies died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? For that matter, how many fetuses? Opponents of abortion should condemn those bombings.
How about pollution? That kills babies.
How about poverty? That kills babies.
How about pollution? That kills babies.
How about poverty? That kills babies.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar