Comments by Brian English

1451. Bill Maher hates your (fill in the blank) religion

Comment #226996 by Brian English on August 9, 2008 at 6:39 am

Perhaps it is just me, but I don't want to live in a society where people get to just declare they are right

Point of order. I am right. Thank you, try the steak, it's lovely.

1452. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226451 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 5:31 am

That's OK Bonzai (I edit all the time). I share a lot of your dislikes of (some) philosophy. But I guess being mediocre of mind (that is, unable to spend the time and lacking the mental ability to be a mathematician or physicist), philosophy at least gives me a glimpse of the bigger picture. I like Hume because he was an empiricist. A lot of his ideas don't stand up after 250 years and why would they? Science and maths (and philosophy for the better or worse) have exploded in that time. But his basic philosophy (speaking now of attitude, not ontological or epistemological shite) was that you can't just presume, you need to back it up with evidence and logical conjecture. Or at least that's how I read him. I like that. Anyway. I'd better watch the Olympics.

1453. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226449 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 5:17 am

We don't know that. These questions are only meaningful in the context of what we know about causation, the meaning of space and time, "beginning" and so forth and their meanings depend on our current knowledge of science, which is constantly shifting.

Science doesn't have the last word, we only have provisional pictures.In order to make progress, it is often necessary to suspend assertions about "ultimate" reality.

Philosophy on the other hand, likes to make grand proclamations of what is or what is not possible. I find that presumptuous.

Spoken like a true Humean. Seriously, Hume makes the same (or similar) points. Question everything, trust nothing unless it's backed by evidence or analytic. Of course, you can't prove that and that's where logical positivism fell down. Our guess about facts of prehistory (or the future) are assumptions based on the laws we observe today (which are inductive) being similar to laws back then, this is inductive. We can't justify this because we can't justify induction because we need induction to justify the presumption that what we observe today will hold tomorrow, etc.

Anyway, I don't think Goedel was deterred by the logical positivists, in fact he was determined to use logic to prove them wrong. So philosophy can be blamed for that and for the fact that Goedel and Einstein both favored the ideal view of time that Kant gave us (and inspired relativity).....Philosophy can generate ideas as well as critique.

1454. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226444 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 4:50 am

He asked, "if the Goddess created heaven and earth, who created the Goddess?" Qu Yuan was not known to be a philosopher.

I didn't know Hume asked this. He didn't accept that there was any reason to suppose causation back to any beginning. There was no evidence for it. Hume thus made the first cause argument or any causation argument open to attack, he didn't need to ask about a first cause.

1455. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226443 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 4:46 am

I am a bastard. Sorry, but I have a lot of trouble with embedding links on this site.

1456. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226441 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 4:44 am

Brian - You cannot prove that.

Damn straight. I can however prove that 4 is not greater than 5 (given standard arithmetic) and thus prove a negative. That's something, isn't it?

1457. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226438 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 4:41 am

Amazon

1458. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226432 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 4:35 am

Thanks Bonzai, it looks interesting. I've added it to my Amazon list of things to buy. :)

1459. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226430 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 4:32 am

If you're bored Bonzai, give Hume's Treatise of Human nature a squiz. It's free, just go to project Gutenberg. You may find some interesting stuff about probability there. If you're interested in his religious dialogues, then grab his Dialogues of natural religion.

Of course, if you've got better things to do, ignore this suggestion.

1460. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226428 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 4:29 am

Oystein, it seems the interpretations are important if you're trying to justify god. If you're only trying to work with the universe, then it's not such a biggy. :)

1461. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226427 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 4:27 am

Bonzai, you give a unique point of view on these issues. I grew up in a catholic family, and a lot of this shit seemed normal (or was taught as normal) for me, it's a bit of a revelation to throw off the shackles, which you rightly point our were not shackles for many people through history. I didn't really agree with what I was taught, but the alternatives were never offered and there was very little hints that they existed.

Evolution doesn't disprove god, but it does make him an unnecessary bystander and removes man from the center stage. Both of which are unacceptable to many theists.

I agree, that the moment a god is codified, then it's philosophically pretty easy (if you're a smart type) to show how that god doesn't work.

1462. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226421 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 4:07 am

1) you have more work to do in order to nail down "the" interpretation or 2)reality admits multiple interpretations so the exercise of finding an interpretation is not really important.

Exactly, so if interpretation is open or needs to be nailed down then we're only just deciding the interpretation by criteria that seem most prominent to us. Which is what Hume was sort of getting at when he investigated what knowledge, or causation was based on.

Do we really need Hume to state the obvious?

Do people really believe that God created the world and evolution is wrong and there's a cause behind everything traceable back to the disembodied spirit who exists outside of time? Give the poor guy a break, he lived 250 years ago, but his criticisms of religion are still valid and worth a try.

The thing is, Hume stated the obvious before evolution was used as an attack on religion and so you can borrow his arguments, or Kant's to defeat a theist on their own premises (that is, premises they might accept). Some of them are allergic to evolution (premises they don't accept) as a justification and so it's handy to have a different approach.

Doesn't matter. I don't wish to argue with you, you've generously given your opinion and you certainly know more than I. Thanks :)

1463. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226419 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 4:01 am

"Why speculate when you can calculate?" So it is only recently that I have had to think about this, and at the moment I am just confused.

This is funny for me. I was thinking that Swinburne was decrying a non-existent phenomena (that science doesn't seek to explain in QM, only calculate and predict). But his point was sound from what you say, if not his justification (to give god an explanation by showing that QM isn't perfect either in his idea of perfect).

1464. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226417 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 3:57 am

Wonder how the two are connected.

Fag (gay) is a contraction of Faggot:1. offensive term for an openly homosexual man
2. a bundle of sticks and branches bound together

verb
1. ornament or join (fabric) by faggot stitch; "He fagotted the blouse for his wife"

Fag (ciggarette) fagge broken thread in cloth, loose end (of obscure orig.);

1465. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226413 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 3:52 am

Hungarianelephant, I agree with both your points. One thing about Hume is a lot of people thought he was just a skeptic (I'm not saying you are one of those) only. But from what I gather is that he tried to 'clear the floor' of woolly justifications and then look for any reasonable justifications. He never denied the necessary feeling we have for seeking causation, he only denied that it could be justified. Which sort of leads back to my point about us being an evolved species that evolved to feel that causation was a necessary thing and not just a 'constant conjunction'.

Hume was the guy who Kant used to get a leg up with his 'phenomenal' view of the world. ;)

1466. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226407 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 3:45 am

The result of this very article may throw some lights on what happen during collapse, it may turn out that "the collapse of wave functions" is not a irreducible event as conventional QM holds.

Bonzai, with the greatest respect, you just proved the point that it's about interpretation, not logical necessity. I.e. in conventional QM. Now I'm not a philosopher, just an interested amateur and I know your opinions of philosophers but when we say it's this interpretation or that convention then it is open to speculation, isn't it?

Hume didn't make any scientific discovery as far as I know.

No, but he shredded some interpretations that anti-rationalists aimed against science and empirical verification.

1467. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226400 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 3:34 am

enlightened = in lightened. How the hell do those Christians get any light inside their minds when they're living in the dark ages?

1468. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226395 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 3:27 am

Oystein, I haven't read the book yet. I haven't read all of the Coherence of theism either. I thought I'd just ask you, Steve, or any other knowledgeable type about it.

On a related manner, what is your opinion of causation? I can accept that at our 'level' effects follow cause, but on a quantum level then it's all a matter of probability and not a logical necessity.

P.S. I agree with Hume on causation. That is, that we derive the concept of causation from experience, not that it's a logical necessity. I think we feel it necessary because it is what occurs (not necessarily in a logically necessary fashion) in our middle 'level' and thus we evolved with that idea of it being more or less necessary that all effects follow a cause....

1469. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226393 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 3:24 am

Worrying about how and when waves collapse into particles is silly. It is simple to understand experimental results in terms of the many worlds interpretation.

Again, we can interpret the evidence in many ways. I guess our only guide is parsimony. So, bringing out the razor, what is more parsimonious? Many universes that we have never evidenced or waves collapsing in this universe that we have never directly evidenced?

1470. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226389 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 3:15 am

Quetz, that is my particular point of view. And also the view of Swinburne (from what I can gather). Anyway, I thought I'd ask the brains that we're privileged to have on this site.

Thus, Swinburne's point is that we can use words that in mundane uses don't make a coherent description (i.e. light is both a particle and a wave) coherently because we are using them by analogy. MPhil said Swinburne made good arguments.

1471. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226385 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 3:12 am

I haven't a clue :)

Me neither. Oystein seemed to have a clue, viz light = waves.

1472. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226383 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 3:10 am

Just read a bit of the Bohm interpretation. If that doesn't show Quine's idea that all interpretations can be made to fit the evidence, then I have no idea (actually, I don't have any idea about that which I speak). :)

1473. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226380 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 3:06 am

Steve, thanks for that. I'll read it later, as it's been a while since I've read the Bohm thingy (again, year 12, or first year physics)

My point doesn't really require the in depth discussion it just asks do we say photons are equally waves and particles or on a deeper level waves (or particles)?

1474. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226379 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 3:04 am

My understanding of his argument is that he uses the arrow of time which only applies for macroscopic systems.

Oystein, a theist who uses the Cosmological argument, among others (I had a sneak peak of 'The existence of God') needs causation to be a necessary thing, trace back to a first cause. Now if causation of any form isn't necessary (virtual particles) or isn't following the arrow of time (positron = electron moving backwards in time) then the first cause argument is sunk. Not that it wasn't . Hume pointed out that from our current observations (current = whole of human history) we can't justifiably say what happend 15 odd billion years ago. We can't say if the universe had a cause, or if it had one or many causes. I mean, why couldn't the universe be cyclical or be the result of a virtual particle doing weird shit that we can't understand because it happened when there was no universe greater in size than the plank length?

1475. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226367 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 2:39 am

The best explanation I've read that satisfied me somewhat is that terms like wave and particle are human constructs used to describe natural phenomena. It's not the phenomena's fault that we can't describe them well. But then, that's pretty much what Swinburne was saying, that we are using words that have an accepted meaning in our "middle" world, but use them in a more loose sense.....

1476. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226366 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 2:37 am

When I was teaching physics I used to tell my students that electrons, photons etc "behaved" as if they were waves sometimes and like particles at other times, but if you were to ask "is an electron a wave or a particle?" then the answer, as far as I saw it, would be: "it is an electron."

(Barbara Streisand voice) Memories, like a year 12 physics class.....

That's what I recall from a good 18 years ago. I thought that it was so vague an answer but didn't question because I wanted to pass (and did) the exam.

1477. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226364 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 2:35 am

Pulchritude. Great word, don't see it used often enough. Like Bonhomie et. al.....

1478. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226361 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 2:31 am

Bonzai, insightful comment. Good analysis.

1479. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226360 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 2:26 am

Hey also thinks Feynman's 'positron = electron traveling back in time' is incoherent because at time t1 the positron is in a certain state, then later at time t2 we can do something to the positron that changes the state of the positron at t1 (causation backwards in time). He doesn't want reverse time travel because it doesn't help you when you have a cosmological argument requiring causation to move forward in time.

1480. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226357 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 2:23 am

His problem is that to make the common theistic descriptions of god respectable he needs other situations (such as respectable science) where descriptions seem incoherent but aren't. Thus he wants physics to treat light equally as wave and particle, with the common definitions of wave and particle somewhat loosened so that light is more wave-like than non-wavelike things and more particle-like than non particle-like things. What he doesn't want is light to be a wave because then he can't trade on the respectability of Science to allow his god a free pass with incoherent descriptions being loosened so much that they mean not much at all....

1481. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226332 by Brian English on August 8, 2008 at 1:55 am

Oystein, if you're about or Steve the legendary, I was reading a book by Christian apologist/philosopher Swinburne who doesn't like the Copenhagen interpretation because he feels that scientists have given up trying to describe phenomena by not accepting that light can be a particle and a wave. His suggestion being that we loosen the definition of particle and wave so that light can be both at the same time and not be incoherent. First, is that what the Copenhagen interpretation says (that we just predict the effect of light, not describe what light is (particle v wave) my memory of physics is slim)? and second, does it make any sense to say light is particle-like and wave-like when we don't really mean a particle is a particle or a wave is a wave except in the most vague sense?

1482. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226295 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 9:57 pm

Hasta luego TWP. Your liver will thank you.

1483. Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist

Comment #226270 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Are you sure it wasn't pain in his Knackers?

Being Knackered just means being buggered. ;)

1484. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226267 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 8:30 pm

Feminism and Islam seem mutually incompatible to me. But then I'm neither a women nor Islamic.

1485. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226259 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 8:19 pm

Not at all - I do not think I am fat. But beer has made my gut more enticing - can be soft or hard-ish at will. And it wobbles with the right stimulation. And it has a scar :-)

And its social security number is in the mail....

1486. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226252 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 8:11 pm

Goldy, one day you say you're not fat, the next you're bragging about the wonder that is your gut. Are you confused?

1487. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226249 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 8:10 pm

Nite Dhamma

1488. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226248 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Lavender is an anti-depressant. Put that in beer and you can drink all night without getting maudlin.

And you won't smell like a brewery the next morning!

1489. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226233 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 7:53 pm

Crawford has always had the rumours about him. In that image he was playing it up in a skit where he was supposedly a doctor on a footy variety show. He's an AFL footballer and happily married with a kid I think.

I've really derailed this thread. I told you I was a trickster god. I hate order and clear oasis.

1490. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226228 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 7:49 pm

There was a song a few years ago by anarchic rockers TISM which had a pithy refrain akin to: I shagged a girl who shagged a guy who shagged a girl who shagged Shane Crawford

I think the idea being that the songwriter had a man crush on Shane Crawford and thus was vicariously satisfying that crush.

1491. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226224 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 7:45 pm

Not sure 8teist. Like the guy who says You're not gay if you're giving, just receiving

Aussies are a weird mob.

1492. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226219 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 7:40 pm

I'm expecting Richard or Josh to turf me from this site in 5...

1493. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226217 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 7:39 pm

Listen, pal (said in very deep gruff voice), not all of us greenies are tree-huggin' poofters!

Too right! Laurie's as blokey as they come. Can't say the same for his poofter boyfriend.

1494. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226212 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 7:35 pm

Besides, NZ is a far more progressive country ;)

Insert joke about man wedding favorite sheep here

1495. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226208 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Perhaps I should bring out the other photos of me in my Sunday best? Let's see how the stitching handles that!

1496. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226204 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Laurie, perhaps Helen Clark can put on an atheist conference and we can visit?

1497. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226200 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 7:29 pm

Goldy, apologies if you've done some damage.

1498. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226187 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Goldy, the Yarra Valley isn't far from me. Perhaps I should visit. The trick is getting some idiot to drive so I can get sloshed. Nobody has a lot of time for me when I'm sloshed. I start talking like I know stuff. Damn alcohol.

1499. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226185 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 7:19 pm

That was hard work getting the images to display!

1500. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226177 by Brian English on August 7, 2008 at 7:14 pm

plus

plus

equals