Comments by Oystein Elgaroy

301. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #229081 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 13, 2008 at 4:45 am

While the subject of religious family members are up, here is what I have to negotiate between:

Wife: atheist (thank goodness)
Mother, sisters, aunts, cousins etc.: Christians
Mother-in-law: Marxist-leninist
Father-in-law: New Age-guy (crystals etc.)
Oldest stepson: Wants to be a muslim like his father.

If I fail as an astrophysicist, I will try a career in diplomacy.

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

Comment #227648 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 10, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Comment #226930 by InfuriatedSciTeacher

When you do the math a positron moving forwards in time can be treated as an electron moving backwards in time. An excellent non-technical explanation can be found in Richard Feynman's "QED - The strange theory of light and matter". A bit more technical, but still readable if you have been exposed to some quantum mechanics and special relativity is Halzen and Martin: "Quarks and leptons: An introductory course in modern particle physics".

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

Comment #226424 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 8, 2008 at 4:18 am

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).

I can't speak for "science", only the tough-minded people I was surrounded by in the old days. Interpretations of QM are only a distraction when you try to calculate the properties of nuclei and neutron stars using quantum many-body theory. I must admit that I still have some sympathy for this view, even though it doesn't live up to Swinburne's ideals.

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

Comment #226414 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 8, 2008 at 3:56 am

Comment #226395 by Brian English

What's my view on causation and QM? I wish I knew... I did my Ph.D. in theoretical nuclear physics and the philosophy I was brought up in was that of the late professor Vijay Phandaripande: "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.

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

Comment #226392 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 8, 2008 at 3:22 am

Comment #226379 by Brian English

Interesting point. And if Swinburne hasn't got better arguments up his sleeve I don't think he has justified the kind of causation he needs.

Comment #226375 by Steve Zara

So you are a Bohmian? I am no expert on this, but I thought that the Bohm version of quantum theory was extremely difficult to extend to quantum field theory. Do you know of any recent developments?

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

Comment #226374 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 8, 2008 at 2:57 am

Brian,

so you have been reading "The coherence of theism"? I just finished it myself and will read "The existence of God" next. I don't agree with Swinburne's objection to positrons being electrons traveling backwards in time. My understanding of his argument is that he uses the arrow of time which only applies for macroscopic systems. The fundamental equations of physics are symmetric in time, so his argument doesn't apply to single electrons/positrons.

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

Comment #226346 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 8, 2008 at 2:09 am

Comment #226332 by Brian English

I don't see Swinburne's problem. To my mind, Feynman's path integral formulation of quantum mechanics allows me to think of light as particles in all situations. The experimental setup will determine which classical paths will give the dominating contributions to the integral and this in turn determines whether the results will be wave-like or particle-like.

308. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #225824 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 7, 2008 at 12:09 pm

I would be interested to hear Libby Purves explain exactly how a omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent creator is consistent with evolution.

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

Comment #225789 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 7, 2008 at 11:31 am

I must admit I've never heard of a "weak measurement" before. I will try to read the paper, but won't be surprised if I don't understand it.

Comment #225772 by zbob

the Stockholm interpretation

I am sure you will have a bunch of angry Danes at your doorstep very soon. But maybe you can soften their hearts by mentioning the "Copenhagen syndrome" in a future post.

310. Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists

Comment #225723 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 7, 2008 at 9:42 am

jakedanger-

And if it is faith, then how can science claim a prevideged position with respect to other faiths, including theistic faiths?

Science is not a "faith". It is a method for investigating reality.

311. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225689 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 7, 2008 at 8:06 am

Comment #225663 by Ygern

I wouldn't be surprised if D'Souza found evidence for string theory in the Bible. It is ridiculous, especially since it is not clear at all that Genesis 1 even talks about creation from nothing. It hasn't always been interpreted that way.

312. Call to teach biblical creation as science

Comment #225648 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 7, 2008 at 6:46 am

Comment #225636 by decius

The term "Dark Ages" refers to the period from the microwave background decoupled from matter to the first stars were formed. So technically there was light before there were stars. I wonder when some clever theologian will claim that inflation is mentioned in Genesis 1.

313. Is our universe fine-tuned for life?

Comment #225305 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 6, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Comment #225269 by Bonzai

Of course. That goes without saying, all theories must fit observations. What I meant was that the formation of structures or the existence of life should not be used as some kind of backward "explanations" for why the constants appear to have certain values. I am not saying that you are doing that, but often people do without noticing, it is easy to be trapped with the 'wrong' perspective.

As you probably know, this is exactly what a lot of string theorists propose to do. If it should turn out that the parameter ranges that allow complex structures are wide, as the article above indicates, the prospects for using the anthropic principle to find the right version of string theory look bleaker.

314. Is our universe fine-tuned for life?

Comment #225148 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 6, 2008 at 9:27 am

Comment #225057 by Bonzai

I think the question should be whether the constants can be fixed by theory.

We can hope that, for example, the constants that determine the strengths of the fundamental forces can be written in terms of one fundamental coupling constant once (if ever) we find a unified theory that includes gravity. But the forces will only be unified at very high energies, and the unified theory will probably not be able to predict the relative strength of the different forces in a low-energy universe like the one we live in now. For example, the electroweak theory relates the strength of the electromagnetic and the weak nuclear force. At high energies they have the same strength, but at low energies they are, of course, very different. The relative strengths of the two forces at low energies is determined by the details of how the symmetry that relates the two forces is broken, and that is not something that we can predict. I suspect that this feature will still be present in a more fundamental theory.

315. Is our universe fine-tuned for life?

Comment #224871 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 6, 2008 at 12:34 am

Comment #224868 by ericross

You are right, Stenger has done something similar.
But I think his analysis was crude, relying on back-of-the-envelope estimates for lifetimes of stars etc.

316. Is our universe fine-tuned for life?

Comment #224862 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 5, 2008 at 11:28 pm

The main result of this paper is very interesting, although not really surprising. One of the main problems with earlier work suggesting that fine-tuning is necessary for life to occur has been that only one parameter has been allowed to vary. It is great that Adams has done a more careful job. What remains to be done, as Adams says in the paper, is to see how the three parameters he has varied affects cosmology. That is, whether there can be stars at all in the universes he considers. I hope to find the time to investigate this.

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

Comment #224647 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 5, 2008 at 9:45 am

Joe,

I have a list of books for you:

http://www.science.org.au/pi/goodbooks/preschool.htm

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

Comment #224644 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 5, 2008 at 9:38 am

Comment #224640 by Diacanu

Don't feel discouraged. Joe ignores pretty much everything. He is like a message on an answering machine, only less interesting.

Keep on ranting!

319. Physicist Claims First Real Demonstration of Cold Fusion

Comment #224476 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 5, 2008 at 2:59 am

I think the lack of clear, reproducible results is a good reason for taking cold fusion with a grain of salt. The lack of a theoretical basis is also worrying, but if the experiments were convincing the physics community would have accepted cold fusion as a real phenomenon. Both low- and high-Tc superconductivity were accepted long before there was a theoretical understanding of them (in the case of high-Tc superconductors there is still no consensus on the mechanism behind it, as far as I know). More than 40 years passed from Kamerlingh-Onnes discovered low-Tc superconductivity (Nobel prize in 1913) before Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer came up with the explanation (Nobel prize in 1975). Still, the phenomenon was accepted as real because the experiments were convincing and reproducible.

There is no conspiracy within the physics community to suppress the results of the cold fusion camp, it is just that the majority think that they haven't proven their case yet.

320. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #224430 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 5, 2008 at 12:58 am

Comment #224425 by Old Sarum

Interesting point. A similar point is made in this article
http://talkreason.org/articles/super.cfm
where the authors argue that the more fine-tuned the universe appears to be, the less likely is it that the explanation is supernatural. There are, of course, so many other reasons why the fine-tuning argument fails. I am tempted to think that the main reason theists use it is that many people don't know enough about physics and cosmology to see the problems.

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

Comment #224164 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 4, 2008 at 8:52 am

Joe,

I TOLD YOU BEFORE THAT US MUSLIMS ARE ON THE TRUTH AND ARE READY TO DEMONSTRATE THIS ANYTIME IF GIVEN THE CHANCE.

I think you have had ample opportunity to do so here, but you have used it to make a fool of yourself instead.

322. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224093 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 4, 2008 at 5:30 am

Comment #224078 by 27b-6

Paul was the founder of Christianity. p37 (He contradicts himself on page 213)
A popular claim on atheist web sites and in secularist literature. Some even call Christianity Paulianity. This is contrariness for the sake of contrariness.

No it is not. It is a view held by many serious scholars (Geza Vermes to name one) that makes sense of the discrepancies you find between the teachings of Jesus found in the Gospels and the teachings of Paul.

Atonement from Original sin is the central doctrine of Christianity. (Original sin understood as the sin of Adam physically transmitted in semen from one generation to another). P251 and that Paul invented it 252
The idea of atonement might be central to Christianity but original sin is not. It is not mentioned in the creeds or for that matter in St Paul or anywhere else in the New Testament.

Original sin is standard Catholic and Lutheran theology. And the doctrine is at least implicit in some of Paul's letters. Check out Romans 5.12.

323. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #224025 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 4, 2008 at 2:17 am

Comment #224015 by 27b-6

You know that the computer in front of you is designed without having any idea who designed it

This is an argument by analogy and only works if you can establish that there is a strong and relevant analogy between, in this case, computers and the universe. You know that the computer is designed because of previous experience from a lot of similar cases. The fact that you don't know who designed it is irrelevant, you can reasonably infer that there is a designer. What experience do you have of other universes?

324. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223848 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 3, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Comment #223845 by 27b-6

Where is your evidence for God?

325. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223831 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 3, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Comment #223827 by Sargeist

That's a great anecdote. And the Dirac equation is one of the most beautiful equations in physics, a true work of genius.

326. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223825 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 3, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Comment #223820 by Sargeist

Abraham Pais has written a biography, "Paul Dirac, the man and his work". There is also one by Helge Kragh, "Dirac: A scientific biography". I haven't read it, but I have read a couple of Kragh's books on the history of cosmology and they are excellent.

327. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223816 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 3, 2008 at 1:00 pm

27b-6:

If there is a stronger version of theism than RD considers in TGD it is certainly not to be found in Flew's book. The arguments he puts forward are the apparent fine-tuning of the parameters of the Universe and his own inability to see how the origin of life can be explained scientifically.

Flew also seems to think that his case becomes stronger by listing a number of famous physicists with theistic/deistic inclinations. His inclusion of Einstein in this list is dubious, to say the least. But he is plain wrong when he portrays Paul Dirac as religious. Wolfgang Pauli once summarized Dirac's beliefs in the creed "There is no god, and Dirac is his prophet."

328. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #223774 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 3, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Comment #223770 by decius

And I guess we mac users are hated by all.

329. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #223751 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 3, 2008 at 10:41 am

Comment #223745 by Cartomancer

Furthermore, who gets to decide whether you really are a christian or not?

We have had a few cases in Norway recently where this has actually been an important question. The cases concern refugees from Afghanistan who claim to have converted from islam to christianity. As converts they would be in mortal danger if sent back home. In this case, the Norwegian immigration office decided that they were not christian enough. I am not quite sure how they knew.

330. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223696 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 3, 2008 at 7:42 am

Comment #223693 by notsobad

I have no idea what you mean. The health benefits of tobacco were revealed to Jean Nicot (praise be upon him) some four hundred years ago. All the "research" that points in the opposite direction is just a lie fabricated by non-smokers who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the truth. They will be punished.

331. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223444 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 2, 2008 at 9:33 am

Comment #223425 by decius

My wife's philosophy of photography is that if she can make me look good, she can make anyone look good. She isn't quite there yet. The cigarette is in the picture to break rotational invariance.

332. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223429 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 2, 2008 at 9:12 am

Comment #223422 by Steve Zara

I think they go too far to be believable. Appendix B is a "dialogue" between Flew and N. T. Wright on the resurrection. After Wright has "proved" that the physical resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of the facts, they make Flew say: "I am very much impressed with Bishop Wright's approach, which is absolutely fresh". Come on!

333. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223419 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 2, 2008 at 8:52 am

Comment #223417 by Steve Zara

I think appendix B in "There is a God" shows that Flew is clearly being manipulated.

334. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223309 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 2, 2008 at 1:47 am

Thus, regular consumption of beer, wine etc., helps eliminate the weaker cells

In my case they are not eliminated, just transported to my belly.

I really don't understand Flew's obsession with Einstein. But I do feel sorry for him.

335. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222904 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 1, 2008 at 5:05 am

Old Sarum -

even if a "delusion-free" religion could be constructed, it would still be a problem for those who care about whether their beliefs are true or not. Recently I read a book called "The weakness of God" where the author (a guy called John Caputo) "deconstructs" the Bible and gets rid of the supernatural realm, throws out God as a personal being and spends most of the book talking about how God is an "event". This seems to be a benign form of religion, but my problem with it is that there is absolutely no reason to think that it is true.

336. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222542 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 31, 2008 at 2:11 pm

There is also no compelling way to get ethical directives from science.

Maybe not, but there is also overwhelming evidence that religion is even less helpful in this respect.

337. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222492 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 31, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Comment #222469 by black wolf

I am relieved to say that this information was of no help whatsoever.

Comment #222470 by decius

Martin "The Crusher" Rees and Stilleto-Steve Weinberg will soon be knocking on Hoagland's door. He has come too close to the truth.

338. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222464 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 31, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Comment #222454 by decius

How did you find out about the conspiracy to conceal the evidence for extraterrestrials?

Comment #222455 by Cartomancer

Brilliant!

339. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222444 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 31, 2008 at 12:36 pm

I have heard about these "other ways of knowing" for years, and I think it is time for the likes of Giberson and his kind to explain exactly what these "other ways" consists in.

340. Church exorcism protected by First Amendment

Comment #222415 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 31, 2008 at 12:22 pm

Comment #222377 by Gregg Townsend

Gregg,

as a fellow smoker I admire the control you have over your habit. I work my way through a pack of Camel filters every day.

341. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222077 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 30, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Comment #222071 by decius

I am sure I will be. Why anyone would choose the Nordic countries over Italy is a great mystery to me.

342. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222073 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 30, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Comment #222070 by al-rawandi

what was that damn scientists name..?????

Abdul Qadeer Khan?

343. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222068 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 30, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Comment #222063 by decius

How did you end up in Helsinki?

344. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220755 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 29, 2008 at 2:05 am

One of my sisters works as a minister in the Norwegian (lutheran) church, and meets with catholics fairly frequently at "ecumenical events". She has told me that a fair number of them look at the pope in the following way: "My beliefs may differ from the teaching of the Catholic church, but as long as I acknowledge that the pope is always right, that's ok." It is almost as if the pope does the believing for them. An interesting point of view, but probably not common.

345. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220495 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 28, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Comment #220481 by Sciros

Well said.

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

Comment #220453 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 28, 2008 at 1:05 pm

I want to be "athiest scum", too! What do I have to say to Joe?

347. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220335 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 28, 2008 at 10:14 am

al,

all I was trying to say is that there can be bastards of every political persuasion. I am all with you when you say that a mixed economy probably works best. My views on what the proper mix should be might differ from yours, but that's another matter.

348. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220257 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 28, 2008 at 9:00 am

Comment #220246 by al-rawandi

I'll grant you that Pinochet's regime was numerically far less gruesome than Pol Pot's. But your original statement was still too strong.

349. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220245 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 28, 2008 at 8:48 am

Comment #220238 by al-rawandi

The only countries to pile up corpses of their citizenry have been socialist

That is a very strong statement. What about Chile under Pinochet? Didn't he and his henchmen try to live by Milton Friedman's rulebook?

350. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220228 by Oystein Elgaroy on July 28, 2008 at 8:31 am

Comment #220204 by denoir

People want roads and ambulances so they'll pay for them one way or the other.

What about those who can't pay? And if all health care is privatized, wouldn't one of the possible consequences be that only the rich would survive serious illnesses that are expensive to treat? The free market works as an idealized mathematical model, and it works in a lot of situations in the real world, but if it is allowed to govern all areas of society, then I think most of us would find the consequences morally repulsive.