Posts by Coded Logic

34

Is truth relative?

by Pinku in

seeing various/changing laws on the same action, some may feel truth is relative, and there is no such thing as right and wrong.. yet a closer look at beneath the details would show that truth is not relative, and everyone knows what is right and wrong.. driving in the night by putting the head-light off is wrong, but right when country is in war with another country.

behind both the conflicting laws, the truth is same: safety and welfare of the people.

this is true of notion about what is right and wrong:.

Coded Logic

What page/equations/lines of the paper is it you find to support this claim regarding zero radius universe?

Vacuum space set at an energy density of <0 with a wave function of zero (pages 2 and 3 opening perameters and step 6).

but then is it not more accurate to say in some models of the universe the laws of physics are not absolute in some sense but we do not really know?

No, that would not have been more accurate.

Obviously re-phrasing someones elses work to make it appear like your own is not exactly conving me you have a very firm grasp of what you write.

Your mistake. The point of my citations isn't to show YOU that I have a firm graps on what I write. It's to show that what I write is accurate. You can complain all day and all night that I "don't really understand" but, as my statements to Pinku were completely true, I really don't care what level of understanding you think I do or do not have. And, more importantly, when I sit down and read a peer reivewed scientfic article - I ACTUALLY READ THEM. I don't just give it a currsory scan and then emphatically state "this doesn't have anything to do with what your talking about." Because had you actually done that - you wouldn't be in the uncomfortable position you're in right now desperately seeking some Red Herring to distract from massive blunder you've made.

if your point is simply that most formulations of physics include time then that is obvious by opening any elementary textbook in physics

Please cite an elementary textbook in physics that shows quantum mechanics requires the existance of time.

It is much, much better to cite wikipedia than choose an article on inflationary cosmology which do not even discuss the point you are interested in, or at least do not discuss it any more than hundreds of other articles on physics.

WTF?!! I DID cite a Wikipedia article on cosmic infaltion! Serriously dude, what is your problem? Learn how to read.

not to jazz up ones written work by the most hard-to-read articles you yourself have not even read

Well this is just adorable. You're accusing me of having not read it? Wow, you are unbelievable.

I believe we have had this discussion before regarding logic.

No. Being logical and being a jack ass are not the same thing. When I said "if you had better understanding of the topics or more applicable academic sources you can I would love to hear it" - the key words were "better understanding" and "more applicable academic sources." It was not an invitation to bitch and moan that my citations are "too hard to read."

If you have some learning or reading disablity that's okay. But please don't go around telling me I haven't read something when A.) I have - and B.) you clearly haven't.

34

Is truth relative?

by Pinku in

seeing various/changing laws on the same action, some may feel truth is relative, and there is no such thing as right and wrong.. yet a closer look at beneath the details would show that truth is not relative, and everyone knows what is right and wrong.. driving in the night by putting the head-light off is wrong, but right when country is in war with another country.

behind both the conflicting laws, the truth is same: safety and welfare of the people.

this is true of notion about what is right and wrong:.

Coded Logic

Hey Boehm! Thanks for the questions. When I was providing my citations I had actually wanted to get much deeper into the physics but I felt that doing so would alienate Pinku rather than draw them in. But I'm glad you asked as it allows me to really get into the subjects that I enjoy.

In regards to my second citation, Vilenkin used a model of a closed space time with zero energy and then shrank it down to a zero radius. When he did this the "nothing" became unstable and virtual particle paris formed and vacuume energy caused expansion (i.e. the "nothing" changed). (I apologies about the plain text, it was the only location of the paper I could find where you didn't have to pay to download it as a PDF).

As regards to my fourth citation you must have clicked on the thread right after I posted. I immediately realized I used the wrong hyper link and changed it to the correct one. It's a paper by Friedan discussing how the non-linear sigma model shows that our universe might have formed higher dimensions (up to 26) from a starting point of just 2 dimensions. While there are many papers I could have cited on different physical laws at the big bang, I thought this one most appropriate considering Pinku's earlier reference to higher dimensions.

In regards to my sixth citation the paper shows that even at the plank scale the Lorentz Covariance can be preserved. The basic problem with gravity is how to quantize space-time geometry (think of quantized space-time geometry like a lattice structure of grid points). The problem with any lattice structure is that it breaks Lorentz invariance. Noncommutative geometry solves this problem by maintaining Lorentz invariance and space-time structure at small length scales. While there are probably much better papers linking quantum mechanics to time this is the only one I could cite that I somewhat understand.

I appologize if I came off as trying to browbeat anyone. That is the complete opposite of what I want to do. In the past I have cited much more accessible resources (Wikipedia and various scientfic pop magazines) but invariably someone always jumps up and points out "Hey, those aren't science! Anyone one can write that crap!" So I've taken to mostly citing academic and peer reviewed work. Damned if you do damned if you don't I guess. Perhaps in the future I'll cite both to try and dispell the confusion.

Anyway, once again thanks for asking. I'm glad I had the oppertunity to get into it. Also, I'm an autodidact at best so if you ,or anyone else, has a better understanding of the topics or more applicable academic sources they can cite I would love to hear it and read it.

Thanks!

34

Is truth relative?

by Pinku in

seeing various/changing laws on the same action, some may feel truth is relative, and there is no such thing as right and wrong.. yet a closer look at beneath the details would show that truth is not relative, and everyone knows what is right and wrong.. driving in the night by putting the head-light off is wrong, but right when country is in war with another country.

behind both the conflicting laws, the truth is same: safety and welfare of the people.

this is true of notion about what is right and wrong:.

Coded Logic

Pinku - thanks for your reply. Though to be honest, your ideas were so fragmentary and disjointed it was difficult to understand exactly what point, if any, you were trying to make. And, while I would much prefer to address an overreaching topic, I will instead have to settle for addressing each of your points independently.

To start with, you talk about the “visible” and the “invisible”. As far as I can gather, you’re not actually talking about things which can be seen and things that can’t be seen. But instead are addressing “knowns” and “unknowns.” Or, to be more precise, “knowns” and “ the unknown-unknowns.” Though, what this concept has to do with rest of your remarks, escapes me. Reality exists in and of itself. What we know about reality - or don’t know about reality - doesn’t change what it is.

You made the statement that,

Anything that changes with respect to circumstances is not true reality.

I have absolutely no idea why you would think this. I don’t mean to be rude, but this is probably one of the most absurd statements that I have ever had the misfortune of reading. EVERYTHING in our universe changes in respect to circumstances [1]. Even NOTHING itself changes [2]. If your statement were true, we would live in a completely static universe where nothing ever happens or changes.

Truth can describe how things were, are, and will be. Truth can also describe how and why things change. The one thing that truth doesn’t describe, is things that never change (i.e. absolutes). This is easily demonstrated, If you take a physical law and put in different values (circumstances) you will get different answers. Because physical laws are descriptors of reality [3]. Even the laws themselves are not absolute. They are conditional upon the properties of space time and energy [4].

Quantum Mechanics reveals that space and time have no meaning unless there is a conscious observer.

No, quantum mechanics does NOT reveal that. Because quantum mechanics does not - and cannot - be used to address “meaning” [5]. “Meaning” is a subjective value metric that we assign to things, principles, ideas, etc. “Meaning” is not a scientific proposition.

Meaning ≠ Explanation

Meaning requires purpose. Explanation does not require purpose. Quantum mechanics can only be used to explain things. It cannot be used to assign purpose to things.

Currently physicists take a stand that physical principles really don’t require the concept of time.

This is untrue. Physicists state that how we perceive time MAY be completely wrong. But physical principles still require the use of time [6].

All these prove that even space and time are not really basic properties of the universe; rather, they are products of our own mind.

Okay, once again I don’t mean to be rude, but you are just not sufficiently enlightened to be discussing these topics. You don’t have have a grasp on the most basic fundamentals of general relativity and quantum mechanics. Much less the comprehensive knowledge needed to “prove” anything about “the basic properties of the universe.”

Please don’t take this as a personal attack, but if you want to make claims about science you need to FIRST understand the science at hand. You have a lot of learning to do. And I don’t want to scoff at your ignorance. Rather, I want to arm you intellectually. There are some fantastic books out there written by actual physicists who understand the principles you’re discussing. I would recommend Brian Greene’s book The Elegant Universe for you. It starts with the basics and gradually gets into some of the deeper aspects of physics.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

[2] https://archive.org/stream/arxiv-1302.0568/1302.0568_djvu.txt

[3] http://www.oed.com/search?searchType=dictionary&q=Law+of+Nature

[4] http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~friedan/papers/PRL_45_1980_1057.pdf

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[6] http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0512134.pdf

21

More WTS cash-grabbing: "Funds on Deposit" program for Circuits

by sir82 in

jw
friends

at a recent circuit assembly "business meeting" for elders, a new program was announced: "funds on deposit".. here's how it works:.

each circuit determines a "floor" and a "ceiling" for an amount to hold in their circuit checking account.

when the "ceiling" amount is exceeded, the amount above the threshold is wired to the wts and held by them.. if the circuit checking account drops below the "floor" amount, the circuit can send a request to the wts to request that some of their "funds on deposit" be returned to them so that their checking account resumes a "safe" level.. as explained by the elder explaining the program,, "in other words, the branch is acting exactly like a bank - the circuit will make deposits and withdrawals as needed.

Coded Logic

Are they really that broke? :)

34

Is truth relative?

by Pinku in

seeing various/changing laws on the same action, some may feel truth is relative, and there is no such thing as right and wrong.. yet a closer look at beneath the details would show that truth is not relative, and everyone knows what is right and wrong.. driving in the night by putting the head-light off is wrong, but right when country is in war with another country.

behind both the conflicting laws, the truth is same: safety and welfare of the people.

this is true of notion about what is right and wrong:.

Coded Logic

I believe that there is an objective reality. As such, I believe there are truths that can be learned about that reality. Or, more consisely put, reality is the metric used to determine truth. Things that corrispond with reality are true. Things that are in conflict with reality are false.

I have seen absolutely zero evidence that supports that spirits are part of reality.

49

Faith - Virtue or Vice?

by nicolaou in

faith gives you permission to believe that jesus actually did feed thousands with a few loaves & fishes, walk on water and rise from the grave.

all the evidence proves that none of this happened so why persist with faith?

why be dishonest with yourself?

Coded Logic

It means both. I would suggest knowing what you are talking about before declaring someone else wrong.

- Viviane

CL if there is one thing I have learned from Viviane, it's to know your EXACT definitions and state your points clearly and concisely!

- sunny23

Wow youg guys, way to COMPLETELY missrepresent my position. I did NOT say that faith doesn't mean trust. I said that the use of the word "faith" in the OP was not in reference to that particular meaning. Viviane, you are dead wrong and it is unfortunate you didn't take your own advice and "know what your talking about before declaring someone else wrong." I'm not sure why you are on a personal vandetta with all of my posts and comments to "prove me wrong" but the only person you're making look like a "blowhard" (your words) is yourself. Please re-read what I actually wrote on the first page of this thread:

While the word "faith" is a somewhat nebulous term and can have multiple meanings (sometimes synonymous with words like conviction, hope, etc.) it is being used in a VERY percise manner for this thread. We are talking about the sort of faith mentioned in Hebrews 11:1. Specifically, believing something without having evidence or contrary to the evidence simply because you want it to be true. Having "faith" in a person because they have demonstrated their trustworthiness in the past is no equvical.

It would be like if this thread were asking if we should preserve the natural habbitat of wild cranes because they are going extinct and then someone saying that, "cranes are great because they help unload cargo off of ships." Clearly these are two entirely different things.

-CL

49

Faith - Virtue or Vice?

by nicolaou in

faith gives you permission to believe that jesus actually did feed thousands with a few loaves & fishes, walk on water and rise from the grave.

all the evidence proves that none of this happened so why persist with faith?

why be dishonest with yourself?

Coded Logic

I don't see how anything in it can be construed to mean that I think faith without proof is a good thing, or that I had such a faith.

-LisaRose

You are attempting to move the goal post. Nobody said that you think "faith without proof" is a good thing. Nor did anyone say that you had such faith. Rather, the critisim of your initial statement was that you were transposing the meaning of "faith" from: believing things without evidence - to: trust. When called out on this you accused people of being "pathetic" and claimed that you said people put faith in God without reason. Which is in direct contradiction to your first statment:

You can have faith in a person, if that person has demonstrated that they are trustworthy . . . Most believers do think there is reason to put faith in God

The OP is not about people who think they have evidential reasons for belief in a God. Rather, it was about people who willfully believe things without evidence and then claim that is a virtue.

6

Debunking the KCA

by Coded Logic in

for those who havent encountered it before, the kalam cosmological argument is a proof of gods existence and goes as follows:.

) anything that begins to exist has a cause..

) the universe began to exist.. c.) therefore the universe has a cause.. .

Coded Logic

For those who haven’t encountered it before, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is a “proof” of Gods existence and goes as follows:

P1.) Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

P2.) The universe began to exist.

C.) Therefore the universe has a cause.

While, at first glance, the KCA seems reasonable enough we quickly realize that, with any sort of consideration, the argument fails on every possible level. In the following paragraphs we will consider the logic and and the science behind this topic.

To begin with, the first problem here is, even granting the syllogism were valid, the conclusion doesn’t get you to a Creator. The KCA only gets us to a cause. While many will assert that God is that “cause” this cannot be supported because, in the absence of evidence, all Ad-Hocs are equally valid. That is to say, you cannot solve one mystery with another mystery. Nor can you explain one unknown by postulating the existence of another unknown. Saying that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was the “first cause” is equally valid/invalid as saying any other unknown was the first cause (big foot, mini mouse, pink unicorns, etc).

The second problem is the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the first two premises. What applies to the parts of a whole does not necessarily apply to the whole itself. To explain what I mean by this consider the following statements:

All sheep in the flock have a mother - therefore the flock must have a mother.

All raindrops in the storm are pear shaped - therefore all rainstorms must be pear shaped.

This is the exact same sort of bad inductive reasoning that is going on with the KCA: All things in the universe have a cause - therefore the universe must have a cause. Principles that apply to parts of the system do not necessarily apply to the entire system itself.

However, the biggest problem with the KCA is that for a premise to support a conclusion - the premise must be known to be true. Premises cannot be hypotheticals or mere assertions. Rather, premises must be factual.

And the first premise - everything that begins to exist has a cause - is demonstrably false. With one exception, everything in our universe is the rearrangement of energy. Stars, planets, animals, cars, tables, etc. don’t “begin to exist.” Rather, matter that is already in existence is repurposed. However, the one exception is known as Quantum Fluctuations. They are, quite literally, something from nothing.

Those familiar with the First Law of Thermodynamics know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Quantum Fluctuations do NOT violate this law. Rather, when they pop into existence they always do so in equal amounts of positive and negative energy. They were first predicted in 1948 by Hendrik Casimir (see Casimir Effect) and directly measured in 1997 by Steve Lamoreaux of the Los Almos National Laboratory. And Quantum Fluctuations are one of the key factors responsible for Cosmic Inflation.

Even more interesting, is that when we measure how much energy is in our universe, accounting for all the positive and negative energy, it works out to zero. How does something come from nothing? Well zero is equal to zero. And -1+1=0. It doesn’t matter how complicated you make the equation. So long as it balances out in the end.

Lastly, is the second premise - the universe began to exist. This is not known to be true. While we often refer to the initial moments of the Big Bang as the birth of our universe we don’t what happened before that. We don’t know if space time and energy existed prior to that point of if that really was the beginning. In the absence of that knowledge, the second premise cannot be used to support a conclusion. When we don’t know the answer to something we should say “I don’t know” instead of “hey, let’s make something up.”

Anyway, hope this arms you intellectually if you ever come across the Kalam Cosmilogical Arguement. And hope you may have learened something you didn't know about our universe :)

"The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true."

- Carl Sagan

49

Faith - Virtue or Vice?

by nicolaou in

faith gives you permission to believe that jesus actually did feed thousands with a few loaves & fishes, walk on water and rise from the grave.

all the evidence proves that none of this happened so why persist with faith?

why be dishonest with yourself?

Coded Logic

The point I was trying to make was that people put faith in God without having any reason for doing so.

-LisaRose

No, that's NOT the point you made. In fact, you made the COMPLETE OPPOSITE point. Please do not call other people "pathetic" when it is you who is failing to articulate your thoughts. You don't get to say one thing in your comments, and then when you get called on, turn around and claim you were saying the complete opposite. That sort of underhandedness is for GB, not for this forum.

And no one is picking on you. Pointing out a valid logical flaw in your reasoning is NOT a personal attack. However, calling people "pathetic" is. Take a step back and consider your position - the only person acting like a bully here is you.

49

Faith - Virtue or Vice?

by nicolaou in

faith gives you permission to believe that jesus actually did feed thousands with a few loaves & fishes, walk on water and rise from the grave.

all the evidence proves that none of this happened so why persist with faith?

why be dishonest with yourself?

Coded Logic

You can have faith in a person, if that person has demonstrated that they are trustworthy.

- LisaRose

That's not faith. That's trust. While the word "faith" is a somewhat nebulous term and can have multiple meanings (sometimes synonymous with words like conviction, hope, etc.) it is being used in a VERY percise manner for this thread. We are talking about the sort of faith mentioned in Hebrews 11:1. Specifically, believing something without having evidence or contrary to the evidence simply because you want it to be true. Having "faith" in a person because they have demonstrated their trustworthiness in the past is no equvical.

It would be like if this thread were asking if we should preserve the natural habbitat of wild cranes because they are going extinct and then someone saying that, "cranes are great because they help unload cargo off of ships." Clearly these are two entirely different things.