Neutrons escaping to a parallel world?
-
Been watching a lot of Perry Mason lately and am learning not to say anything that would incriminate myself therefore I can say "maybe"!
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
it's a hypothesis, not unquestioned dogma. two guys in Italy wrote a paper. it's not a Papal dictate.
-
I didn't care to continue the debate. I nearly pulled out my 'A' material which is so convincing that you would have lost your free will. ;P
-
There are a couple of possibilities: 1: The religious person perceives evidence of god - evidence that you do not perceive, thereby exposing a deficiency on your part. 2: The religious person perceives evidence which doesn't exist, thereby exposing a deficiency on his/her part. In short, you cannot be sure if you merely lack the ability to perceive a god or if others are delusional. I don't fault you for responding to the evidence that brings you to atheism but you aren't capable of knowing what others are experiencing and what evidence they have available to them. Your arrogant declarations about science vs. religion are hot air.
MehGerbil wrote:
In short, you cannot be sure if you merely lack the ability to perceive a god or if others are delusional
when you have to resort to "but really, what is knowledge" to support a position, that position is on very shaky ground.
-
it's a hypothesis, not unquestioned dogma. two guys in Italy wrote a paper. it's not a Papal dictate.
-
MehGerbil wrote:
In short, you cannot be sure if you merely lack the ability to perceive a god or if others are delusional
when you have to resort to "but really, what is knowledge" to support a position, that position is on very shaky ground.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Seriously, science has to start coming up with more concrete answers than "since we can't explain it, it must exist elsewhere", otherwise, it's no different than theology.
The foundation of logic, mathematics and science are all based on assumptions. A fundamental principle of that is that not everything can be proven - it must be assumed. And at least in mathematics it is possible to prove (to some extent) that not everything can be proven.
-
I've seen a couple interviews with him. I was left with the impression he's dumber than a box of hammers.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
The only difference between science and religion in this regard is that we take it as "fact" what the wise men say because they are "learned", whereas we take it as bullsh*t what the religious say because they are "ignorant".
No, we take it as fact when they prove they are correct. Religion has no proof (hence the need for "faith"). Also, no one is taking neutrons escaping onto parallel universes as fact yet. Right in the introduction it says "hypothesis". That means it is an idea that has yet to be proven or disproven.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Religion will always be more about the why, whereas science is more about the how. I do not see them as opposites.
Unfortunately, not every one sees it that way. For example, people who refuse to believe the Earth is billions of years old, regardless of evidence presented, because their religion doesn't agree. And it will always be the weirdos who stand out and give the rest of a bad name (in anything, religion or otherwise).
lewax00 wrote:
No, we take it as fact when they prove they are correct. Religion has no proof (hence the need for "faith").
As stated - nonsense. Logic, science and mathematics are all fundamentally based on assumptions. Many assumptions. And many of those assumptions are taken based on belief. From there one, based on the context of logic (mathematics and science), then 'proves' something. There is very little and perhaps nothing that I cannot 'prove' by starting with the assumption that God exists. (Where God is defined as the general concept which exists in the Judeo-Christian belief.) And I only say "very little" because there might in fact be something that I can't prove, but I doubt it.
lewax00 wrote:
Unfortunately, not every one sees it that way. For example, people who refuse to believe the Earth is billions of years old, regardless of evidence presented, because their religion doesn't agree.
Unfortunately there are many who express a belief in Evolutionary Theory and yet have no idea what the evidence actually is much less a basic understanding of the science behind it. Or even sometimes without even really understanding basic science for that matter. And thus the believe in it it the same one someone else believes that the earth was created 6000 years ago. The cognitive processes of both are the same.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
However, in their defense, the age of the earth continues to change by a few billion years each time.
Not recently. No adjustments out of the millions have been made in the estimate (this word is important) of the Earth's in the past 50 years at least. A few million is nothing when you're looking on the scale of billions (would you complain of a change of 1 or 2 on an estimate in the thousands? I doubt it.). And the adjustments are made because new information is discovered and incorporated into the estimation methods. Leaving the estimate the same when new information comes along would be pretty stupid honestly.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I think astr[physics/onomy] should set up a disclaimer saying everything is subject to change at any time.
I guess they just make the assumption the disclaimer isn't necessary, science is the pursuit of truth (not the facts generated by the pursuit!), and as such adjustments are made as new pieces of the truth are found. If I told you I had a pet that was grey, and you guessed it was a mouse, but then I told you it had a trunk, would you continue to think it's a mouse, or would you guess it was something different, like an elephant? You don't hold on to information you know is wrong. That's just common sense.
-
There are a couple of possibilities: 1: The religious person perceives evidence of god - evidence that you do not perceive, thereby exposing a deficiency on your part. 2: The religious person perceives evidence which doesn't exist, thereby exposing a deficiency on his/her part. In short, you cannot be sure if you merely lack the ability to perceive a god or if others are delusional. I don't fault you for responding to the evidence that brings you to atheism but you aren't capable of knowing what others are experiencing and what evidence they have available to them. Your arrogant declarations about science vs. religion are hot air.
MehGerbil wrote:
In short, you cannot be sure if you merely lack the ability to perceive a god or if others are delusional
Except of course there are other possibilities. For example and there are others: - 2 does not preclude the existence of God. - 1 does not perceive God because God is explicitly preventing them from seeing it.
-
Because science has shown it to be logical and thus far holds true. We could all claim that the spaghetti monster was summining a new batch thus causing the effect, but there is no logical reasoning for that. Its not used to explain the unknown. It is used to understand a possbile reason. Scientists can then work from that theory to further prove or disprove the original hypothesis. This is then when the key difference occurs. Scientists will adjust their theory accordingly where as using faith people tend to adjust the meaning of the findings.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
-
MehGerbil wrote:
In short, you cannot be sure if you merely lack the ability to perceive a god or if others are delusional
Except of course there are other possibilities. For example and there are others: - 2 does not preclude the existence of God. - 1 does not perceive God because God is explicitly preventing them from seeing it.
-
PhysOrg:
the loss rate of very slow free neutrons appeared to depend on the direction and strength of the magnetic field applied. This anomaly could not be explained by known physics. Berezhiani believes it could be interpreted in the light of a hypothetical parallel world consisting of mirror particles.
http://phys.org/news/2012-06-neutrons-parallel-world.html[^] <Neo>Whoa...</Neo>
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
MehGerbil wrote:
In short, you cannot be sure if you merely lack the ability to perceive a god or if others are delusional
when you have to resort to "but really, what is knowledge" to support a position, that position is on very shaky ground.
Some atheists are comfortable viewing all theists as delusional. Some theists are comfortable viewing all atheists as obstinate. I'd rather give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that a person is responding to reality as they experience it until proven otherwise. Given that in most instances that approach costs me absolutely nothing - to be gracious - it's hardly a problem.
-
Some atheists are comfortable viewing all theists as delusional. Some theists are comfortable viewing all atheists as obstinate. I'd rather give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that a person is responding to reality as they experience it until proven otherwise. Given that in most instances that approach costs me absolutely nothing - to be gracious - it's hardly a problem.
MehGerbil wrote:
it's hardly a problem
i never said simple religious tolerance is any kind of problem.
-
-
I've seen a couple interviews with him. I was left with the impression he's dumber than a box of hammers.
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary Wheeler wrote:
box of hammers
What have you got against hammers?
Why is common sense not common? Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level where they are an expert. Sometimes it takes a lot of work to be lazy Please stand in front of my pistol, smile and wait for the flash - JSOP 2012
-
You're a wise man :) I like to be like Perry Mason once in awhile and work on a case... usually beer.
It was broke, so I fixed it.
S Houghtelin wrote:
I like to be like Perry Mason once in awhile and work on a case... usually beer.
24 hours in the day and 24 bottles in a case...coincidence?, I think not!
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1
