51. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209751 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 7:07 am

Yes, but the example you have was an abstraction. There is no chaotic systems in the world with an infinite number of possible outcomes,

I was using an analogy to try to explain the meaning of "generic".

52. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209750 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 7:05 am

The weather is chaotic, but I can predict that the uncertainty is not greater than -100C to 100C for the temperature of the Earth's surface anywhere next year.

The key point is "next year".

Edit How fast you lose information of course depends on what you want to measure and the context.
An error bound so big would essentially means you have lost track completetly if your purpose is to make say, weather forcasts.

53. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209746 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 6:56 am

that things that are tautological are of course 100% certain

No, because remember a chaotic system is one that not only you cannot predict with certainly, but you cannot even meaningfully estimate the uncertainty. In practical science something is tractable means you can estimate an error bound, not that you can make exact prediction.

54. Degrees of religion

Comment #209742 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 6:46 am

Give them time and, ideally, a nice non-believing European boyfriend who will help her evolve a little further.

Sorry, I do find that rather sexist and racist (why can't the boyfriend be a nice nonbelieving Indian?). Perhaps the offensiveness will be more apparent if I turn this around and assert that the non-believing European boyfriend will end up converting because you know, white guys think with their dicks and they have a fetish for women from exotic cultures.

EDIT: This is not a hypothetical argument I just made up by the way. I have read it in some Muslim site , though not stated so crassly. The guy was arguing for the inevitable triumph of Islam (what else)

55. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209738 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 6:28 am

Well if you have a random "experiment" with finitely many outcomes, say throwing a die (there are six possibilities), the probability being 1 means a certainty, if it is zero it means it will never occur. So in the die throwing example the event that one of 1 to 6 turns up is 1 (certaintly one of the face will turn up, assumming that you won't throw the die so that it ends up spinning on an edge or a corner like in the kung fu movies) The probability of a 7 turning up is zero, because it will never happen.

But it is tricker if you have a random experiment with infinitely many outcomes. Say you pick a real number between 0 and 1 with uniform distribution (any number is equally likely to be picked). Or more commonly, measure a quantity that has a normal distribution, that means, the probability density is a Bell curve. Then the probability of picking any number is zero, though it is a certainty that *some* number will be picked. In the case of the uniform distribution, in fact the probability of picking any rational number is zero! But in these cases zero probability doesn't correspond to an impossibility, just that these events (picking a rational number, say) has "measure zero" in the language of probability. These are, roughly stated, very very unlikely events. (now the philosopher may want to ask if real numbers are "real" , or does it make sense to talk about a continum of outcomes like a Bell curve. I won't get into that except to say I think it is justified and I can justify it if need to)

So imgaine you have a "sample space" of "all" dynamical systems (this is not a mathematically precise notion, but it conveys an impression). If you were to pick a system randomly, the chance that it is non chaotic is zero.

I am sorry I cannot explain it any better. The main point is simply that most systems are non tractable, even though they may be deterministic. So to debate about determinism is moot on a practical level. Even if something is deterministic the norm is that we wouldn't know its destiny for practical purposes.

56. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209730 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 5:59 am

I meant pick a random non-linear system, the probability of it being chaotic is 100% ("Chaos is generic", the integrable non linear systems have "measure zero" in the space of all nonlinear dynamical systems) This is not the precise way of saying it of course, but it conveys the main point that chaos is the norm rather than the exception.

57. Pope confirms sexual abuse apology

Comment #209726 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 5:49 am

Don't sell yourself short.:)

58. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209724 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 5:39 am

All knowledge is at its roots, probabolistic. It is probabolistic in the sense that we assume that physics, and the world will behave today as it did yesterday. Each day it continues to behave as it did yesterday strengthens our assumption.

This is a truism. Obviously that was not the point I tried to get across. I meant something more specific and actually has scientific content.

As you probably know, I don't have a lot of patience with that kind of philosophical tagents, they just deflect from the main argument.

Words are only pointers. In discussions we do assume there is a shared substrate of meanings so that not everything has to be explictly spelt out.

That's why I find it frustrating to talk with philosphers sometimes, they like to pretend that they are conversing with Martians and that all common assumnptions would need to be explictly stated. IMO there is no harm in being aware of those things, but they are not always relevant to the conversation at hand. It just becomes tiresome pedantry if they need to be spelt out all the time. If I tell a philosopher to watch for bears tomorrow at sunset, he would go off a tangent questioning how I know that the sun is going to set (or even rise) tomorrow and it would be train wreck from there. You get my drift.

59. Pope confirms sexual abuse apology

Comment #209723 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 5:36 am

Laurie

Come on, Vaal - we Aussies have been mooning in protest for yonks. I've never actually done it, myself, but now the pope's here, what better time to start?

Bottoms up!

Just make sure you don't have any young male in your mooning brigade. May give the Priests a hard on, you know. :(

60. Pope confirms sexual abuse apology

Comment #209676 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 1:41 am

Jesus said, "Don't stop children from coming to me! Children like these are part of the kingdom of God."

Better run if you are a child and hear that in a Catholic sermon.

Sorry, I know that is in bad taste, but can't help it :(

61. France rejects Muslim woman over radical practice of Islam

Comment #209657 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 12:13 am

This article doesn't offer enough information for me to decide which is the case.

There is more information in the second article I linked to, She wore a burqua not just at home, but in her citizenship interview as well.

62. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209656 by Bonzai on July 13, 2008 at 12:08 am

Oh, I forgot to highlight a highly ironic aspect of brain scanning for psychopaths. Psychologists have compiled the personality profiles of successful corporate leaders and politicians and found that they share many features with the sociopath.

These are the very people who are more likely to embrace new, highly invasive techniques for social control and surveillance and decide how and to whom these techniques would be deployed against. If there is a way to identify psychopathic tendencies through brain scans, we should first use it on the advocates of such technology.

63. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209649 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 11:21 pm

Laurie

Yeah, I agree, Bonzai - it is a dangerous road, and I would be the last to give governments the power to use such technology in any kind of social exclusion program.

Not only government. I am sure employers and corporations such as banks and insurance companies would like to be able to discriminate against people on the basis of such scans if they are allowed to do that. I heard there are cases in the U.S. where people were fired because DNA tests show that they might be more prone to chronic illness (the companies pay for the employees' health insurance, among other concerns.) In the U.K there were cases where people were denied private health insurance because of DNA tests,

64. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209648 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Though, for the record. I consider all knowledge to be probabolistic. So I reject ideas of certainty off the get go. I misunderstood you as saying that it couldn't be done with a high statistical success rate.

To be precise, to say that a system is intractable means not only that you cannot predict its future with 100% certainty,--which cannot be done even with linear system as you rightly noted,--it means you cannot even put a reasonable error bound on your prediction.

For chaotic systems "trajectories diverge from each other exponentially", this means small errors in initial data, which always exist because of even very slightly imperfect knowledge, would magnify exponentially in time. And this is for systems whose mechanism are in principle understood like the weather. With brains we don't even have that.

Edit:
Not all sciences are "probabilistic", unless you mean it in the trivial sense that there are always imprecisions in measurements and predictions

Statistics reveals patterns and correlations. It tells you a and b are associated with high probability, therefore next time when you see b you infer that it is very likely that a may be present. This is "making predictions" in the sense of statistics.

But this doesn't tell you the nature of that association, whether a causes b, b causes a or that they may have a common underlying cause c and how. There is no mechanism or explanation in this kind of undertaking. This is the nature of some soft sciences such as the social sciences or a large chunk of medicine and pharmacy. Mature sciences such as physics are not "probabilistic" in that sense. Newton didn't predict the motions of celestial bodies by just identifying statistical patterns, he had a detailed explanatory theory to account for them.

65. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209646 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 10:53 pm

You seem to be saying that all deterministic systems are in pinciple, and fundamentally unpredictable. I can't even endorse that about the weather. It may be true, I don't know, but I don't think that it follows from the fact that we can't currently predict it, that it is impossible.

Well chaos is generic, that means, yes, most nonlinear deterministic systems are unpredictable. "Most" means with 100% probability, if you like. The weather is in principle unpredictable beyond two weeks and the weather is a very simple system comparing to the brain. The weather is completely described by the 5 or 6 weakly nonlinear partial differential equations (the Navier-Stoke equations, the equation of state etc) The brain is vastly more complicated.

I agree with you that thought crime and statistical propensities to commit crime should not entail any action from the authority,--especially when the tools to determine that propensity is extremely crude and highly confounded.

66. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209642 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 10:39 pm

Mitchell,

"Free will" or its absence is irrelevant to the discussion here. Determinism and tractability are two completely separate issues. Even completely deterministic systems governed by simple, known equations such as the weather can be completely intractable,--even in principle. Such systems are the norm,chaos is generic.

There is simply no way,--and there will be no way,--that you can predict whether a person is going to become a criminal years down the road based on a brain scan.Brain dynamics is highly nonlinear.

67. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209636 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Spinoza

I love the implicit endorsement of free will in your use of the words "you decide" too, lol... not everyone is capable of restraining themselves, and those are the ones we have a problem with

How do you know which ones are unable to restrain themselves?

It is unnecessary to get into "free will". "Determinism" is irrelevant to the discussion at hand if you cannot predict with reasonable certainty what an individual would commit crime in the future. By crime I mean actually carrying out an action, not by having the thought of doing it.

The weather is deterministic, chaotic system are deterministic, but we still in principle have no way to make long term predictions.For weather, "long term" means about two weeks.

68. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209599 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Laurie

Bonzai, I don't think Teratornis (or I) would advocate using such practices as a measure of control on the population. Rather, such knowledge may be useful in formulating treatments for those who have entered the criminal justice system because of their behaviours.

Tera was talking about *children*. I think we are going down a dangerous slippery slope. As you no doubt are well aware that the deployment of technology is not a scientific question, but a political one and power is by and large very concentrated in the real world. If you have a very promising means,--even if it is a false promise,--for population control, the power that be would want to implement it. The way to sell it would be to appeal to our fear and insecurities.

69. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #209596 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 6:09 pm

Teratonis

For example, it would be useful if researchers could use brain scans on children to predict which ones will grow up to become repeat violent offenders.

It would be a horrible idea. What are we going to do with kids who may "tested positive"? Preventative incarceration,lifetime monitoring and stigmatization, or pre-emitve lobotomy based on statistical possibilities? Statistical tendencies are all that behaviour "science" can tell us even under the best circumstances.

What is next? Use brain scan to find out who may be non conformists, trouble makers...or generally misfits? "Anti-social behaviour" is a very vague and all encompassing term. This sounds like a brave new world masturbation fantasy.

Moreover, human behaviour is complex, we are only beginning to understand some of it. The theories we have about 'human nature' and 'pathology' are likely going to be subjected to a lot of revisions and most of them will probably turn out to be wrong.

We have tried to measure people with the wrong yard sticks before, such as their skin colour, gender, genital size and skull size. While these all turn out to be ethically objectionable and scientifically bogus in hindsight, I am sure the practitioners were utterly convinced that their science and ethics were rock solid based on evidence."Evidence" needs to be put in quotations. While facts are objective, their interpretations are not especially when it comes to complex phenomena that we 1)know next to nothing about and 2) cannot be easily disentangled from confounders and 3) our own objectivity may be seriously compromised because of prevailing and unconscious biases.

70. France rejects Muslim woman over radical practice of Islam

Comment #209524 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 2:11 pm

This article may provide a general background to what goes on in the France's Muslim immigrant ghettos and may give some insight to this woman's situation.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/hero2004/amura.html

The feminist group featured in this article supports the decision to deny her French citizenship.

activist group Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Whores Nor Submissive) that champions secular and feminist causes said it was "relieved" by the ruling. "The Republic can in no manner validate this kind of tool of oppression and submission of women," a communique by the group said-referring to what it has called the "green fascism" of misogyny practiced in many of France's blighted suburban housing projects under the cover of Islamic fundamentalism or Arab cultural machismo.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1822189,00.html

71. France rejects Muslim woman over radical practice of Islam

Comment #209511 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Interestingly she did`nt feel the need to wear the burqa in her native land of Morocco but now it`s important to wear it in France .

That is interesting. I was just scanning the article, I missed that.

72. France rejects Muslim woman over radical practice of Islam

Comment #209510 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Rod

The English areas of Canada have many people who came here as immigrants decades ago, but who still cannot (apparently) speak English, because they immersed themselves in cultural ghettos where they had no need to speak English.

I think that is mostly older people, many of whom come via family reunification and are exempted from English (or French) test. I don't have a big problem with that.I think the ghetto phenomenon is overstated. Hey, our former Prime Minister's English is atrocious, and from those who know French, he is not that great in his native French either. I am talking about big Jean. :)

73. France rejects Muslim woman over radical practice of Islam

Comment #209508 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Phil

Their complaint is squarely directed at his behaviour, not his wife's. Do his children lose any rights because of this?

Well the article says that he is a French national, and since the children were born in France, I think they are as well. It seems that they are using her to make a point since nothing can be done to her husband. By the look of it I don't think she is a "radical" Muslim, chances are she is a village girl who was brought up to be meek and submissive to her men folks.

74. France rejects Muslim woman over radical practice of Islam

Comment #209495 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 12:39 pm

mordacious1,

I don't think she will be 'tossed out'. If France's immigration system is like North America, she would still a landed immigrant. She can still work or go to school, buy a home etc,--though I am not sure if any of these would interest her. But she wouldn't be able to vote or get a French passport. I think she can always apply again.

75. France rejects Muslim woman over radical practice of Islam

Comment #209491 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Must they deny her citizenship on such flimsy ground?

Even though I despise the burqua and her "total submission" to her husband, as I hope many modern women would, it doesn't sound right to deny her citizenship on the grounds of reactionary attitude, masochism and bad fashion sense,--well but this is France. It is not like she was caught advocating Sharia or Jihad.

If, as the report says that she is a recluse who has no knowledge of the secular state and the right to vote, then I would expect her to naturally fail the citizenship test. I assume that an immigrant does have to write some test in France to become a citizen, or am I wrong?

76. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #209451 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 10:01 am

Joe

UK 07877826329

That way i can perhaps arrange to send my little nephew over with that bag of marbles i was talking about!

It seems that you have lost quite a few marbles. maybe you'll find them in the bag.

epeeist

Hmm. should I post your [Joe's]phone number on a BNP or evangelical Christian list? You might get some phone calls you don't expect.

Nah, maybe some lurker reading this would scrawl it on the bath room wall along with an invitation.. :)

77. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #209386 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 5:02 am

To paraphrase Jesus, the market exists for the people, not the other way around.

It is perverted to suggest that people should conform to the harsh and absolute logic of the market and they have only themselves to blame if they don't measure up to the dollar God's expectations.

The freest economy with the fastest growth means nothing if it doesn't serve the people.

Paraphrasing Jesus is probably not the most popular thing to do here. But I would rather hang out with Christians who have a social conscience than the market fundamentalist zombies.

Steve

I am not in the slightest bit serious. I think it would be a terrible thing to do with our beautiful solar system.

I know you weren't, you are too decency to really suggest something so horrendous. I was just taking it up as a talking point.

78. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #209385 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 4:49 am

Milton Friedman was once quoted as saying "if you want to see capitalism in action-go to hong kong"

Milton Friedman was also an asshole who cheered for Pinochet. I bet if he had ever been to Hong Kong, he probably just visited Uni campuses, 5 stars hotels and tourist attractions.

Nobel Prize in economics means nothing, it is a pesudoscience and basically an ideological discipline. Read Steven Kleen's "debunking economics" for a dissection of the subject.

79. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #209378 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 4:36 am

I am not sure about the wisdom of hitching survival to growth. There seems to be no equilibrium, you either expand and consume more or you die.

Thus you have to buy a new car every couple of years, even though you don't need one. You have to buy new cloths, new computers, new TV even though you don't actually have to. If the "consumers" don't consume, even the government is anxious to stimulate your shopping appetite by lowering taxes and lowering interest rate. The assumption is that you won't miss a good bargain, never mind that maybe you just don't need that new pair of jeans or that new computer. If we don't buy the economy goes down the drain and we will be hit by a recession. Shopping is a patriotic duty.Wastefulness becomes a virtue.

I think that is sick, even leaving aside the sustainability issue. There is something very wrong if we have to be compelled to shop and waste just to keep "the economy" running. It is not less sickening even if the environment can sustain these activities.

I don't know how serious Steve is but I am appalled by the suggestion that we should build our Dyson's sphere for this purpose.

80. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #209358 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 4:11 am

twp

Hong Kong is the number one free economy in the world. Taking on the capitalism approach (in particular the laissez-faire) they went from poverty to (vast) prosperity, in only 50 years.

Do you know anything about Hong Kong's history? Of course you don't.

Do you know anything about the cold war. the embargo against China and how Hong Kong was used as a conduit to China from 1950 on? The cold war and its geopolitical position made Kong Kong indispensable. More than any economical system, it was the precondition of Hong Kong's rise to prominence.

Do you know how the Hong Kong government subsidized its fledging industry in the 1970's through massive building of low cost housing, thereby taking the wage pressure from the employers? The Hong Kong governor at the time was a Labour party appointee, hardly a believer of laissez fair.

Do you know Hong Kong has been getting fresh water for almost free from China during its crucial phase of industrialization?

Do you know that the Hong Kong government owns most of its land, which is the single most precious commodity of Hong Kong and the government is a major player in the "market" by strategically selling and buying land?

Do you know that Hong Kong has a very high population density, which means that even normally money losing ventures such as public transit can make a profit?

Do you know that since China's take over in 1997, Hong Kong has *more* free market, less regulations and *more* capitalism and merchant rule under the nominal remote control of "Communists"? Yet the economy has been going down hill since, with lower wages, rising unemployment and more poverty.

Do you know anything about the appalling gap between the rich and the poor in Hong Kong (which, though is not nearly as bad as "communist China", which follows an even purer form of capitalism)?

Do you know what it is like to be poor in Hong Kong, behind the glamour of shopping complexes and neon lights?

Of course you don't know all these. I do know, since I am from Hong Kong and my parents and brothers are still there. I visit every year.

A shining example of "free trade" and open market capitalism at work in Asia is the Philipines. Its economy is a basket case and has been since Marcos. Capitalism and democracy don't always go hand in hand, in fact very often they are at odds. One would only know if he studies some history instead of just economical theory.

81. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #209337 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 3:24 am

I won't waste time with twp if I were you. At least Fanusi takes the trouble to present arguments, seriously flawed as they are. Twp just makes simplistic, bumper sticker slogans and assertions like our Muslim visitors, only she is a worshiper of dollar rather than Allah.

82. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #209331 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 3:17 am

People who bring up Hong Kong as proof that unregulated Capitalism "works" have no fucking clue what they are talking about. Should read some history about the place and the geopolitics of the region. Hong Kong is not a *typical* society.

It is unique in many ways and it is not as "capitalistic" as one may think. For one thing, the most important resource in Hong Kong is land and the government owns most of it. It was called Crown Land under the British. The government "regulates" the economy "behind the scene" by adjusting land supply strategically.

83. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #209329 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 3:13 am

EDIT: Goldy, two words...Hong Kong :)

What about it?

84. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209323 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 3:07 am

Mitchell,

Who should bear the burden of proof is a logical question, it is not about social etiquette and convention.

One can debate whether it is socially appropriate to ask certain questions in a particular context, like whether it is a dick thing to do to crash a funeral and demanding a debate with the pastor on the afterlife. The logic and the onus of proof, however, doesn't change.

You can be a total dick with impeccable logic (Watch the TV show House?).One has got nothing to do with the other.

85. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209310 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 2:51 am

"Desecration of the Host" was a serious crime and it was an excuse for persecuting the Jews in the Middle Ages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

There is a picture depicting some Jews "torturing" the piece of wafer. How can any sane person subscribe to such absurdity? Go figure.

Sometimes I really marvel that the human race somehow manages to survive its own stupidity.

86. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #209301 by Bonzai on July 12, 2008 at 2:34 am

I think those people believe in turning the other cheek?

One thing I don't get is,I suppose PZ is a tenured professor. A tenured prof can't be fired over something like that.

I think Steve does have a point.

87. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #208328 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 8:46 pm

No, I don't have a theory. Only some musings. But gotta go back to work. Nice chatting though.

EDIT: I am not a fan of the anthropic principle, at least the strong form. It is not science to invoke it as an explanation of why the universe is the way it is. It is kind of a teleological argument and a cop out. It may be invoked to explain why we see the world we do, but it is probably not the right question as far as physics is concerned.

88. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #208321 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 8:40 pm

Brian

Truth is something intuitive

Then it would preclude most of modern physics.. in fact even classical physics.. I don't find the least action principle the least bit intuitive. :)

A mathematical proof isn't necessarily a truth is the main point.

I never claim it is. Indeed I did say I don't know if the question is even meaningful. What is "truth"? We only run simulations of the world through mental constructs and models, with the help of tools and we update our models by looking at new data. This process seems to work, and in some very remarkable ways, considering that we are able to "comprehend" a much larger world than our evolutionary necessity would require, or indeed could have equipped us for.

This is the truly remarkable part. To quote Einstein, the real mystery about the universe is that it could be understood at all,--something to that effect,

Beyond that I can't really say what is "truth" and I am not even sure what the question means.

89. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #208312 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 8:30 pm

I just edited my last post.

90. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #208301 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Brian,

As to whether mathematical truth corresponds to "truth" in the real world, I don't even know what that means. Is electromagnetic field "real" or is it just a mathematical fiction,--a book keeping device,-- used to describe "action at a distance"?

Personally I don't find that a very interesting question.

What is interesting and remarkable though, is that it actually works in that it allows us create consistent, unified theory that economically summarizes a lot of facts in one coherent picture and make predictions. There is no a priori reason why such conceptual devices should work in the first place.

EDIT

Mathematical considerations of symmetry alone allows us to make predictions in physics.

Einstein's theories of relativity, in a nutshell, are theories about symmetry, so are much of field theories and unified theories. Moreover, areas like high energy physics have been in a state where theory,--almost entirely mathematical,--is vastly ahead of experimental data for quite a while. Data typically catch up later,--and in some cases they still haven't as in string theory and the more speculative end of cosmology.

I don't know why it is that the universe appears to have a mathematical skeleton, and I suppose one can attach whatever philosophical significance to it, but this is something remarkable. There is no apriori reason why abstract mathematics should find such remarkable resonance in the "real world" at all. (Any theory about how our brains have evolved would not explain it. Our brains evolved in "the middle world" and there is no reason why we should have the ability to recognize patterns in subatomic and cosmic realm unless these patterns are indeed "universal" in some sense, and there is no reason why our logic and mathematics, created by brains evolved in the middle world, should be able to make predictions by analyzing these abstract patterns and "structures" even before there is any data!)

91. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #208272 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Brian

I think mathematical proofs are true as far as they go, but not necessarily true in the 'real' world.

Sure. I never say they are and there is no mathematical proof that mathematical truth must coincide with "truth" in the real world. Therefore if a mathematician makes that assertion it is merely an opinion. :)

For example, calculus uses the concept of infinitesimals to accurately measure the gradient on a slop when differentiating (correct me if that's wrong, it's been a long time since I did calculus). Anyway, these infinitesimals are infinitely divisible..

That was Newton's original idea, but today calculus is not presented using infinitesimals,--though I had taught a course like that, my purpose was to teach a "conceptual" course to not very well prepared students, it was not computational demanding but still non trivial and interesting.

In a rigorous calculus course one uses the language of "epsilon" and "delta". There is no need to appeal to mysterious "infinitesimals". Basically, following Weierstrass, instead of thinking in terms of "dynamical processes", one thinks about "static" geometry,--actually topology,--to circumvent logical problems like those you described.The price to pay is that calculus loses some of its suggestive power.

However, Robinson developed a system of "non standard" arithmetics in the 1960's, which includes a fully rigorous development of "infinitesimals". Except for model theorists,--model theory is properly a branch of mathematical logic,-- most mathematicians, however stick to the epsilon -delta approach. The Robinson system didn't gain much attention until someone proved some long standing conjecture in operator theory using non standard method (a "standard". proof has since been produced)

BTW, have you read Karl Marx's notebook on calculus?

It described the derivative like this, "when the numerator and denominator actually become zero, their quantitative relationship disappears.. but their qualitative relationship persists..." It sounded very strange from a modern point of view. But if you are into 19th century philosophy and things like the Zeno's paradox you may find it interesting read, at least amusing.

92. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #208257 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 7:06 pm

cyberguy

You would think that a Ph.D. in Mathematics would lead a person to rationality and logic, but obviously not in this case

I don't think anything would lead a person to exercise logical thinking and rationality if he choose not to, perhaps for some strong emotional reasons.

Mathematics, like the hard sciences, equips one with the ability to think logically and rationally. Whether you want to use that ability in a given situation is your choice.

I think the reason is that mathematics is mostly an abstract subject area, and in maths you don't have to depend on external real-world evidence to confirm your thinking. The theory is all rigourously conceptual - that's why you can have valid mathematical proofs, whereas it is impossible to prove something to be true in other sciences - a very fundamental difference.

Yes. But that means mathematics has an even higher standard of "truth" than the empirical sciences. Mathematicians do consider "evidence" and "data", in the form of examples, counter examples, numerical simulations, models etc, but empirical evidence, no matter how compelling, is not sufficient to establish theorems in mathematics. This is a higher standard than in the empirical sciences, especially the "soft sciences".

So, this difference you talk about is a strength for mathematics, not a weakness.

Therefore, a mathematician should be even more reluctant to jump to conclusions even with circumstantial evidence, let alone basing one's conviction solely on flimsy logic and vaguely defined terms such as "God", like Lennox does. If he chooses not to apply this standard to theology, that is because of other personal reasons, not because of flaws in the mathematician's way of thinking.

Sorry man, I am a mathematician and professional honour is at stake.

93. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #208126 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Lennox has a very confused mind. He needs a serious course in logic, and to understand the reasons behind the scientific method.

Well there is a difference between not understanding logic and deliberately avoiding or distorting it for one's agenda. For Lennox it is definitely the second case.

A guy with a Ph.D.in mathematics doesn't need any lecture on logic. What the man needs is the willingness to use it even when it may lead to conclusions that contradicts his cherished ideas and a little bit of honesty, to others and himself.

94. Religious bigotry upheld in court

Comment #208103 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 3:20 pm

So what if someone refuses to marry mix race couples on religious ground? Can he claim it is his right? White supremacist churches do exist.

While I don't know the fine details of U.K law, there should be a lot of ground for appeal if the law makes any logical sense at all.

95. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207972 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 11:09 am

"Dr" Zakir Naik explained why pork is forbidden in Islam.

The pig is the most shameless animal on the face of the earth. It is the only animal that invites its friends to have sex with its mate. It feels no jealousy. And among people who consume pork, the practice of wife swapping and other forms of promiscuous behaviour is common.

The fact that this guy is considered to be a serious intellectual by Muslims tells you something about the mental state of these people.

Islam means mandatory lobotomy.

You can find other gems here.

http://www.islamicvoice.com/february.99/zakir.htm

P.S. What the hell is he a doctor of?

96. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207964 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 10:56 am

Al

As for Islam and the ass kicking. It will surely happen... the gulf will widen once oil is no longer in demand or no longer in existence. At this point the void that seperates the two worlds will be so painfully obvious. Will this show Muslims they need to get their act together??? Some maybe, but most no. It will show most that Allah needs MORE piety from them, and MORE shariah. They will come to resent the west as the glaring evidence of the failure of their world view.

The oil is a curse to the Muslim world. Without oil they would have been forced to shape up instead of keeping up the nonsense for so long and smugly wallowing in their own stagnation.

China went through a phase of self pity and withdrawal into the fantasy of past glories in its initial encounter with Western imperialism, which climaxed with the boxer rebellion in the 1870's. The mentality of the boxers were not unlike the Islamic fundamentalists, except they didn't have a systematic theology and more importantly, they didn't have the cash flow from oil to sustain their madness and export it. China snapped out of it relatively quickly.

P.S. Don't mention oil no longer in existence, you know who you may awake to write his book length posts. :)

97. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207955 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 10:43 am

Comment #207932 by Fanusi Khiyal

I don't always agree with Fanusi, but I must say this is awesome.

98. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207845 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 8:08 am

Al

Joe is an example of when a mid double digit IQ mixes with a keyboard and broadband. Apparently English is his first language (am I wrong) but for a long time he seemed like a Turk struggling with English. I have noticed that with converts to Islam, who are so totally immersed in the culture and society of Islam, they lose their English skills rapidly

I have the most contempt for converts. At least those who were born into Islam and raised in it don't have much of a choice and apostasy always carries great personal risk. They are victims. But people who voluntarily submit to such a totalitarian, idiotic and hateful belief system deserve no sympathy (At least I can see that Jesus had some decent message and seemed to be a basically moral person, I can't see anything in Islam that deserves any respect, no redeeming feature AT ALL)

Are you sure Islam means "submission"? I think it means mandatory lobotomy.

99. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207781 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 7:08 am

I think I need to ask: Who the Hell is John Lennox?

There.

http://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=69823

I always think algebraists are no good. :)

100. [UPDATED] Venomous Snakes, Slippery Eels and Harun Yahya

Comment #207779 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 7:05 am

I won't even tell you what I am wearing, or not wearing and where..