- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYeah, well, you're not Humpty Dumpty, so that trick doesn't work for you.
I am using the term quantum in this context to represent possibilities.
If you want to ask a scientific question and want to be taken seriously, you'll have to use scientific terms to mean what they do mean, not insert them randomly to make your babblings look as if they have meaning.
Richard
Originally posted by humyHere is one of the definitions of Asbergers:It also sounds to me you may suffer from some kind of autism, if true that could explain your bizarre words
his words are bizarre but I happen to know quite a bit about autism ( I used to professionally care for autistic people ) and I don't think autism would explain his words but don't know what might.
In most of his posts, he seems to re ...[text shortened]... ctually relate if they relate at all which they often don't -a possible symptom of …? anyone?
Have a formal style of speaking that is advanced for his or her age. For example, the child may use the word "beckon" instead of "call" or the word "return" instead of "come back."
http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/tc/aspergers-syndrome-symptoms
All in all, these symptoms appear stronger than what we see from quick so I don't know.
He might just have bizarre ideas, he might be very religious or some such and needs to connect that with science but not clinically crazy.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou're demanding that science be held to the same standards of conduct as mathematics, but whereas mathematical principles may be established solely on the basis of logical analysis, science by definition is an empirical endeavor based on experimental data. There is very little "infinite-sigma" science to be learned anymore, and many philosophers (and scientists) would say there never was.
I'm not trying to disprove the 'atom' exists. I'm trying to highlight sciences
lack of rigmarole in ensuring the proportionate analysis of results by way of language structure.
2 edits
Originally posted by Soothfast
You're demanding that science be held to the same standards of conduct as mathematics, but whereas mathematical principles may be established solely on the basis of logical analysis, . There is very little "infinite-sigma" science to be learned anymore, and many philosophers (and scientists) would say there never was.
science by definition is an empirical endeavor based on experimental data
And yet Einstein himself was been reported to have experienced a tactile conciliation of an in-exactitude when he contempled upon quantum mechanics. Upon which he commented 'God does NOT play dice'.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckAnd the reply was 'not only does he throw dice, we don't even know where they are thrown'.science by definition is an empirical endeavor based on experimental data
And yet Einstein himself was been reported to have experienced a tactile conciliation of an in-exactitude when he contempled upon quantum mechanics. Upon which he commented 'God does NOT play dice'.
I take it you want scientists to admit god has a hand in everything in the universe or some such and to conduct science with that in mind every minute of every day.
What advantage do you see in that regard?
5 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ckWhen Einstein refers to “God”, he doesn't mean a personal god nor a supernatural god but merely “the universe” and he NEVER believed there exists a personal/supernatural god.science by definition is an empirical endeavor based on experimental data
And yet Einstein himself was been reported to have experienced a tactile conciliation of an in-exactitude when he contempled upon quantum mechanics. Upon which he commented 'God does NOT play dice'.
So, for Einstein, his personal use of the word “God” simply refers to/means “the universe” .
There are no end of lies propagated all over the internet by crazed lying religious fundamentalist that misquote Einstein or say/imply he did believe in a personal/supernatural god. Here is a link explaining and exposing just one just such common lie: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/einstein_god.htm
Originally posted by sonhouse
And the reply was 'not only does he throw dice, we don't even know where they are thrown'.
I take it you want scientists to admit god has a hand in everything in the universe or some such and to conduct science with that in mind every minute of every day.
What advantage do you see in that regard?
And the reply was 'not only does he throw dice, we don't even know where they are thrown'.
My point entirely. We don't know but we should have a leading theory.
1 edit
Originally posted by humyInteresting read.
When Einstein refers to “God”, he doesn't mean a personal god nor a supernatural god but merely “the universe” and he NEVER believed there exists a personal/supernatural god.
So, for Einstein, his personal use of the word “God” simply refers to/means “the universe” .
There are no end of lies propagated all over the internet by crazed lying religious fundament ...[text shortened]... g just one just such common lie: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/einstein_god.htm
He wrote(Einstein): "[T]he word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
I am aware of the concept of Specious logic. I recently linked to a pdf which applies this logic to gravity and the search for the 'God' particle.
Originally posted by humyYes , Einsteins statement about God not playing dice only refers to his belief in a causal universe. His disagreement with his peers at the time,was that the mechanics of the Universe are causal and not probalbalistic .
When Einstein refers to “God”, he doesn't mean a personal god nor a supernatural god but merely “the universe” and he NEVER believed there exists a personal/supernatural god.
So, for Einstein, his personal use of the word “God” simply refers to/means “the universe” .
There are no end of lies propagated all over the internet by crazed lying religious fundament ...[text shortened]... g just one just such common lie: http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/religion/a/einstein_god.htm
2 edits
Originally posted by kaminskyI think he was probably right. He often was you know?
Yes , Einsteins statement about God not playing dice only refers to his belief in a causal universe. His disagreement with his peers at the time,was that the mechanics of the Universe are causal and not probalbalistic .
It's great. The next time a Christian shows up and stubbornly refutes logic with
the expression 'God is'. We can turn around and say 'That maybe so but we are
discussing what this.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckActually he was probably wrong , experiments after his death show an acausal universe may exist. Einstein would have almost certainly have changed his postion.
I think he was probably right. He often was you know?
It's great. The next time a Christian shows up and stubbornly refutes logic with
the expression 'God is'. We can turn around and say 'That maybe so but we are
discussing what this.
3 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI wish they ( mainly scientists ) wouldn't keep moronically and melodramatically calling it the 'God' particle.
Interesting read.
He wrote(Einstein): "[T]he word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
I am aware of the concept of Specious logic. I recently linked to a pdf which applies this logic to gravity and the search for the 'God' particle.
I hate it when they do that -extremely unprofessional.
Originally posted by humyThe history of that term is quite amusing. According to Higgs, it was invented by the physicist Leon Lederman, although unwillingly. Originally he had refered to it as "that godd-mn particle", but his editor wouldn't let him. Higgs himself said about the term "God particle":
I wish they ( mainly scientists ) wouldn't keep moronically and melodramatically calling it the 'God' particle.
I hate it when they do that -extremely unprofessional.
"I find it embarrassing because, though I'm not a believer myself, I think it is the kind of misuse of terminology which I think might offend some people."
Originally posted by humyIndeed. I would have preferred the "Satan particle," or even the "Prince of Darkness particle."
I wish they ( mainly scientists ) wouldn't keep moronically and melodramatically calling it the 'God' particle.
I hate it when they do that -extremely unprofessional.
Anyway, once the press catches wind of a catchy phrase they won't let it go because it sells.