Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Definition of religion (Score 1) 552

by UnknownSoldier (#47968787) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

> you've got way more explaining to do on how god came from nothing as a fully formed

Why do you assume _your_ definition?? That is not the _standard_ definition of God:

God, much like "Now", is eternal. God has _always_ existed -- the exact same argument you are using for energy of the physical universe.

  > The origin of the universe is well within the purview of science,

There are zero experiments one can repeat to demonstrate how the universe began. Without the ability to repeat an experiments you have at best, Philosophy, not Science. Or are you completely cluess how the Scientific Method works?

Comment: Re:In lost the will to live ... (Score 1) 552

by HiThere (#47967645) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Depends entierly on the atheist. Some start from a Buddhist background. In fact, so ARE Buddhists. (My main problem with Buddhism is that all the arguments are phrased in terms of inevitable reincarnation of something...Buddha was a bit opaque about just what, so I'm not certain that I can't believe it, but I'm sure not certain that I can.)

My personal problem has to do with the nature of the evidence, and the unreliability of even disinterested eye-witness testimony. The only gods I'm certain of are those that I've encountered (I *think* they're the same things that others have called gods), and they appear to be mental phenomena. (I'd say psychic, but that term has been so misused that it would be even more likely to be misunderstood.) They appear to be sub-linguistic mental phenomena that are probably the same things that Jung called archetypes. The roots from which all mental functioning is buit. These features seem to be shared by many (all?) people, though it's hard to be sure, and some of them even seem to be shared with other mammals. (Well, dogs to be specific. I don't understand cats well enough to comment about them, and the evidence is quite weak even for dogs...being more along the lies of "consistent with the theory" than "experimental proof", but then that's true even for other people.)

Also, your attribution of certain beliefs as originating with Christianity is highly suspect. Many Christian practices and beliefs came from Mithraism. Others from Judism. And Others from Hellenistic Greek philosophy. Just how much originated with Christianity is extremely dubious if, in fact, anything did except a bit of clever phrasing and some political tactics. Certainly the equality of people before the gods was neither unique with Christianity, nor universally held by Christians. (See, for one example, "The Divine Right of Kings". It was also held in many times and [Christian] places that the more powerful were more loved by god. The Puritans, e.g, made it explicit. "Material success the the manifest sign of divine favor." That's not an exact qoute, as far as I know, but it could be.)

Comment: Re:Definition of religion (Score 0) 552

by UnknownSoldier (#47965015) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

> By which definition?

As we all know Energy can not be created nor destroyed yet Science tells us "magically" the universe came into existence from _nothing_.

Religion says the Source / Eternal / God has _always_ existed. Ergo, God is the ultimate source / cause of _everything_.

Second, Science by definition is amoral. Ergo, it is incomplete. A absolutely wonderful system but it has its limits to what it can (and can't know.)

+ - The Ruinous Results Of Our Botched Understanding Of 'Science'-> 1

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry writes at The Week, "If you ask most people what science is, they will give you an answer that looks a lot like Aristotelian "science" — i.e., the exact opposite of what modern science actually is. Capital-S Science is the pursuit of capital-T Truth. And science is something that cannot possibly be understood by mere mortals. It delivers wonders. It has high priests. It has an ideology that must be obeyed. This leads us astray. ... Countless academic disciplines have been wrecked by professors' urges to look "more scientific" by, like a cargo cult, adopting the externals of Baconian science (math, impenetrable jargon, peer-reviewed journals) without the substance and hoping it will produce better knowledge. ... This is how you get people asserting that "science" commands this or that public policy decision, even though with very few exceptions, almost none of the policy options we as a polity have have been tested through experiment (or can be). People think that a study that uses statistical wizardry to show correlations between two things is "scientific" because it uses high school math and was done by someone in a university building, except that, correctly speaking, it is not. ... This is how you get the phenomenon ... thinking science has made God irrelevant, even though, by definition, religion concerns the ultimate causes of things and, again, by definition, science cannot tell you about them. ... It also means that for all our bleating about "science" we live in an astonishingly unscientific and anti-scientific society. We have plenty of anti-science people, but most of our "pro-science" people are really pro-magic (and therefore anti-science). ""
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:a collision wouldn't surprise me (Score 4, Informative) 63

by MindStalker (#47961871) Attached to: 2 Mars Missions Set For Arrival, Both Prepare for Orbital Maneuvers

You have no idea about how big the vastness of space is. The chance of them colliding is like the chance of two bullets being fired in a high arc across New York city, and them colliding. Sure that chance happens once per orbit, but its simply not going to happen especially as they both will eventually establish stable orbits that simply will never cross.

Comment: Re:kill -1 (Score 1) 421

by HiThere (#47960693) Attached to: Fork of Systemd Leads To Lightweight Uselessd

That's, to me, a new example of the problems with systemd.

So far the only one that's sounded serious is the "won't fix" reply to a report of logfile corruption. But there have been a humongous number of complaints about different small problems.

To me systemd sounds like a bad idea. I don't really know. The problem appears that it's going to be hard to avoid, and with so many small problems, it's quite likely that there are some serious one.

A question in my mind is "What problem does it fix?" The only answer I've heard is that you can boot faster. This doesn't impress me, as I rarely boot my computer, and when I do I often want many of the steps to happen slowly enough that I can tell what is going on.

My suspicion is that systemd is a very bad direction to go. I'm remembering that mono was also sponsered by Red Hat. And even if I grant the best of intentions, big chunks of code tend to break more often and be harder to fix.

Comment: Re: So everything is protected by a 4 digit passco (Score 1) 503

by HiThere (#47960449) Attached to: Apple Will No Longer Unlock Most iPhones, iPads For Police

My interpretation is fully deterministic in the same sense that their was. Probabilistic is meant in the "sum over histories" sense that multiple histories yield the same present, so you can't reasonably pick just one and say "That's what came earlier", but you instead have a spread of probabilities of linkage. I interpret that probability as the strength (weight) of the link. From each past the probabilities to all the futures it links to sum to 1. Similarly from each present the probabilities of all the pasts it links to sum to 1.

The difference between out models is that EWG, at least in the presentation that I read, only considered forwards (toward the future) links. I see no reason to believe that this is a correct interpretation. (I'm not sure about chronology, but I believe the EWG model was created prior to Feynman's Sum over Histories approach being derived. This difference is probably the result of that.)

People are always available for work in the past tense.