That shouldn't be surprising in Dr. Hussein's case. The man's truly a deviant liar and a despicable partisan malcontent. Excoriating conservatives and Republicans as the scum of the earth makes his world go 'round, and if he has to lie, cheat, steal, and distort to advocate his program of godless postmodern nihilism, that's what he'll do.
As always, don't listen to a word of it. These people have no virtue whatsoever.
Yes, I'm the "Dr. Hussein" he's referring to and no, I have no idea what brought this on. Sure, at the American Nihilist blog, this is the sort of thing I'd say as a complement of myself. But here in the real world, this is just pathetic. I am godless, so he's got me there. But the rest of that sounds like straight-up parody. But honestly, I've yet to meet the conservative who didn't sound like parody.
An ASS of U and ME
But that's really the best Donald's got to offer. The rest of his post essentially consists of him insisting that because it's often assumed that Democrats engage in class warfare, therefore Obama's specific tax plan must be class warfare. And in order to justify this, he cites Isaac Asimov's definition of the word "assumption" to demonstrate that I must accept Donald's assumption as being true.
Yes, it's gotten down to semantic games based on the word "assumption" which, by the way, was never even used in my original post. And first off, Donald's premise isn't an assumption which he can rely upon, because it's the specific topic we're debating. It'd be like if someone tried arguing that the world is flat based upon the assumption that the world is flat. Sorry Donald, but you don't get to use your conclusion as your assumption.
And secondly, while his citation says assumptions shouldn't be considered "true or false," it goes on to say "It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality..."
In other words, Donald's assumption might be useless if it doesn't correspond to reality. And that's exactly the point I was making from the start; that this "assumption" doesn't correspond to reality. But even worse for Donald was the part he failed to include, which went on to say:
"On the other hand, it seems obvious that assumptions are the weak points in any argument, as they have to be accepted on faith in a philosophy of science that prides itself on its rationalism. Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible."
Yet, not only is Donald's argument based upon an assumption, it's the entire argument! All he HAS is the assumption. Because this "assumption" is all we're discussing. Of course, that citation was referring to scientific theories and assumptions, but as long as Donald is relying upon this source, it's important to note how badly it undermines him. Not that it was really applicable in the first place.
And the best he can do to bolster his case is to cite more examples of this assumption; as if conventional wisdom can create reality. Somehow, this gets less convincing every time he does that. People assume things to be true all the time, but that doesn't make them true. And for him to suggest that common assumptions are always true based upon their assumed nature, then he's clearly a bigger nihilist than I.
(Disclaimer: That is not a proper usage of the word "nihilist," no matter how often I mock Donald for using it.)
Obama's Warfare
But even if historical class warfare by Democrats was somehow established fact, and it's not, that still doesn't establish how Obama's specific tax plan is class warfare. What would that argument be? Is Donald suggesting that any tax plan a Democrat makes is class warfare? No, because he cites Clinton as someone who rejected class warfare. Is it that anyone who thinks the rich should pay more than the poor is a class warrior? No, because everyone thinks the rich should pay more than the poor; including Donald himself.
So what is the specific basis that Donald can make to show that Obama's engaging in class warfare? Nothing. He assumes it to be true because he must assume it to be true. Because otherwise, he has no argument and ends up proving my initial point: That this "assumption" is false and/or useless. And again, if Donald wants to admit that he can't defend the basis of his assumption, that's fine. It just means he loses and shouldn't have tried to rebut my argument. Because this was my initial point: That conservatives couldn't defend this premise, and sure enough, Donald seems incapable of doing so.
But conservatives do this all the time. Their ideology makes no sense in reality. And for as much as they rely on assumptions to make their arguments, these assumptions rarely correspond with reality and are therefore useless. You either have to blindly accept the assumptions they give you or it'll never make sense. And that's the reason conservatives don't understand us: Because their assumptions are so ingrained into their thinking that they don't even realize they're making them.
And so poor Donald can only imagine I'm some freaky postmodern denialist, simply because I refuse to accept assumptions that have no basis in reality. To even question these assumptions is to be a lying, cheating, stealing distorter. And that's because the entire conservative ideology is built upon a heap of unexplainable fiction. They believe these things to be true. They just can't explain why they think that.
Posts
24 comments:
"In other words, Donald's assumption might be useless if it doesn't correspond to reality."
And that's the thing, Dr. Denialist ... it does correspond, perfectly, as I cited in numerous examples at the post. What's even more interesting is how you're avoiding even mentioning Obama's own resistance to defend his proposal as progressive, seeking to hide it in moderate language, as the Politico pointed out.
The Democrats are engagiung in class warfare. Some, like Booman, are thrilled by this ... he's honest.
You and the president are not.
So, I rest my case. An assumption is just that ... it's not something to be proved or disproved. YOU do not have to accept it, but of course YOU have always resided in an alternative reality. That's why you're postmodernist.
Next case?
Stick, please?
"An assumption is just that ... it's not something to be proved or disproved."
Nor is such a contrivance to be accepted in any way as having any intrinsic weight or merit beyond its immediate utility to the one who hoists it. Assumptions are FOR CHALLENGING, Sir!
Fact: Scientists prove and/or disprove stuff all day long. It starts as "theory", which consists of a body of assumptions all based on all that can be and indeed is observed of the item at hand and question. Debaters, however, are not always scientists.
There is where it all goes sticky for some.
A debater will puncture or validate the selfsame things that a scientist will reliably prove or disprove to the satisfaction of all but the hardest hardcore tinfoil-y wingnuts (and we shall always have some of those) by merely semantic means (sometimes appropriately applied, sometimes not, depending). But just because it is a debate does not mean that naked brass knucks and biting of all kinds is allowed, my friend! That false-based attitude is popular in "Power Politics" circles but have we all been so very well served (let alone governed) by such as those of late?
It is a sad thing when a scientist's honest proof is crushed by a sleazebag "debater's" assumption. Sadly, although the prior four Republican administrations pumped America full of "Compassionately Conservative Assumptions" (also known these days as "Greedy BS"), we the People are now living in the living PROOF that the "Unassailable Assumptions" were and are (ain't they always?) based on lies, power, convenience, advantage, denial and contrivance, force and fraud to the advantage of the already-well-off over all others. "Some people call you rich... I call you my BASE", quoth GWB on the 2000 campaign trail, and he was not kidding his RICH audience at the time.
So who else did that one help? Anyone you know?
So who was really doing actual class warfare (as in the rich eating the poor alive) from the start? How shall it be stopped? Um, does the word "BALANCE" mean much to you today?
Odd that Republicans even today like to call themselves "conservative". Nonetheless, it is by now abundantly clear that they do, after all, reliably (also cheerfully) destroy more Amrican as well as non-American lives once in power than they ever strive to assist, let alone mend. So this destruction - what does it "conserve" except for the destructionists' very phat 'n' shiny bank balances?
Remember: "Conservatives" of the "Compassionate" label started the whole ugly "Useless Eaters" meme on the AM Talk Radio with a "consolidated" (aka MONOPOLIZED) "Free Market" and NO MORE "FAIRNESS DOCTRINE" ALLOWED, did you forget? So why might one ever now complain of Obama+Dems making "Class War" and not recognize the steepening slide toward National Feudal Serfdom for all of less than a $2b Net Worth that has for the moment been apparently averted?
Note: I say "Apparently" because the entire "New Recovery" hope-thing is in fact merely (once again!) circularly financed, Ponzi-style, from the start. Um, we as a Nation could have gone with sound money and hard work, we might have at one recent point. But the candidates who would have done that for us all once inoffice - Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, to name but three, were NOT ALLOWED. Only the ones who would back a Ponzi Model were allowed on stage.
Follow the REAL MONEY.
But no, what Bush et al dug us all into with his false-flag warmaking, feed-the-rich giveaways and all-pervading cronies-only "Goombah Model" of public governance privatized, Obama is ramping the bankers out of - into those two fair-sized lifeboats over there by the rail, see 'em? Meanwhile we in the second-class berths are encouraged to just enjoy the view of the icebergs off the starboard bow and wonder if dinner is again to be delicious... While the band plays on... Deck chair? Ginnantonnix? Blankie and sleepie-time again?
NO.
I pray for the awakening of the folk in Steerage Class, I do. Routing the ship's stack gas emissions through the lower decks as a means of "Pollution Abatement" is MURDER, my friend! But what does that little "M-word" detail ever matter to a modern "conservative" shipowner, anyway?
Um, excuse me, but isn't that top-quoted very rationale precisely and almost beautifully symmetrical in a recognizably circular way to yourself, as well as most if not all adult humanoid others?
Fact: The mental "ability" to first adopt exactly any arbitrary position (aka "assumption") and then flogging all others into the ground by means of assumption-based force and fraud, propaganda shriekdown and "neener-neener-neener-I-can't-HEAR-you!" misbehaviour to the detriment of all (except, for a season, maybe the person or party that wields the neener-bludgeon) is exactly the manner of "reason" that a certain sort or ilk of defective thinkers once dominent in US politix still uses with sickening regularity instead of CARING ADEQUATELY and DOING THE MATHS PROPER. Researching the actual facts and adjusting their (or even the nation's) course accordingly just might prove too much like top-grade precision professional HONEST WORK when compared to a glib application of an assumption-based or "faith-based" (same dirty trick) "Political Fix" that just buggers everyone blind, except the blind assumption-wielders themselves, what with that-there corrupt model of Privatized Public Governance to shield and prop up?
What is so damn "conservative" about having learned to adopt and then force a lie, no matter the size? "Radically criminal" rises to mind as the accurate appraisal, my friend!
BTW: Where do "conservatives" get off, once they start "conservatizing" the entire world+dog into their own pockets and offshore banking accounts while the dysentery rate spikes for lack of fresh clean drinking water, the babies starve in their mothers' arms and the women themselves go without even the minimal health care because of the slave wages and hollowed-out "programs" that are known all around the world+dog to be today's new "Conservative" norm?
Example: Think of the Bush Admin's Very Shiny "Drug Benefit" with the built-in "Donut Hole" that left soooo many sick Americans to die in pain and misery. (I have lost two friends thus far from the deadly false compassion of American "Conservatism", so I am not "assuming" a damn thing about this.)
[piratemode] The "conservatives" in America, me bucko, be aught but the radickal dickheads of Them the Rich-Arse'd Base, 'ere in America, y'see. That is all they be, Matey, and you best likely know it too lest ye be the greater fool, arrrr-rr-r. Mind ye, the genuine ones be rare - but know that them kind will save what is worth keeping instead of wrecking the works right out from under the entire Ship of State and all her crew at a privatized profit, arrr-rr-r. [/piratemode]
You do write nicely, Sir, as does Doctor Nihilist, whom you should really dignify with his screen name instead of calling him every damnable twisted meme in the book. You BOTH write very nicely, you know? But the above-quoted "Unassailable Assumption" bit is exactly the recognizably misshapen position that has stood from the most ancient beginnings of classic intellectual exercise as unassailably bogus. Any normal linear-thinking reality-based person who examines it with normal vision will reliably recognize the ill-scented and somewhat greasy smoke-stain that its corrupting and distinctively second-rate presence reliably leaves on any handy mirror whenever it is exhaled.
Excuse me while I grab the Bounty® and Windex®, OK? Just because it is MY MIRROR and YOUR SMOKE does not mean that I think I am "too good to clean anything" or whatever assumption just might likely pop out of the hole next shot. On the other hand, I do strive to avoid all such exhalations as a strong general rule, which is quintessentially conservative in itself, don't you think?
Fact: I'd throw any man-jack out of my own office whom I found "working" for me in that STUPID self-aggrandizing bugger-the-works manner. Gee - come to think of it, I have already done that very thing three or four times in the early years of my manufacturing career. Them circular-thinkin' types sure be sneaky on even the second interview; took a while to learn to spot 'em, but I for one no longer must get myself hurt for not being able to so spot such as them, any more.
I did better afterward in my own wee bizness after the firing, every time, too. I am sorry, Sir, but no assumer of circular logic as normalcy shall ever taint my own sweet operations again - you for one are hereby rather compassionately (for that is my nature) and truly conservatively (for I must prevent my own vulnerable and unique Floral-Motif Art Glass production and marketing operation from all manner of degradation and destruction at the "Just-fake-it-if-can't-make-it" hands of all such ilk as that) pre-fired. :)
For that matter, I do not hire nihilists either. DIfferent operative factors, same base reason.
NB: Bush said it right: "The terrorists work hard, day and night, finding new ways to destroy America - and so do we."
It isn't HIS fault that only a few semantically aware ones actually believed those words on the spot, now is it? Everyone else needed eight years of being robbed blind in their sleep before consenting to at last stop throwing those wingnut-laden little balls of tinfoil at us while heckling the reality away wwith their ASSUMPTION of Compassionate Conservative Benevolence... He was manifestly NONE of those three, and threw the entire balance out of joint; Mr. Obama's Band-Aid'll Ponzi up another bubble to crash the world, is all... All on the ASSUMPTION that everyone else in the world is blind as blnd can be.
Here's the Talking Stick back now. NIce grouse feathers, too. I am Walking Turtle, it is sort of nice to meet you both in passing, and that is all.
It's the "Professor's" whole schtick, Bio.
Donald intentionally misuses inflammatory words and phrases against those with whom he disagrees, and since he cannot defend his semantic choices with either fact or definition, he chooses instead to quote other people who misuse the same inflammatory words and phrases as he does, thinking that their saying what he says proves his point, rather than making him and everyone else who misuses these inflammatory words and phrases look equally foolish.
By his definition, every plan or policy that treats the rich differently from the poor is "class warfare."
Reagan's "voodoo economics" was class warfare. Clinton's welfare reform was "class warfare." And yes, if you buy into what Donald's saying (which most sane folks do not), President Obama's economic plan is "class warfare," just like every other President's economic plans have been.
I suppose one can refuse to see any difference between rich and poor, requiring the same taxes of everyone, and offering the same tax breaks to everyone, with no distinctions based on income level. It would be nice, I guess, but it isn't realistic.
If it's "class warfare" to ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their share for the freedoms that made their wealth possible, at the same time helping the poor, then it is "class warfare" to give the wealthiest Americans large tax breaks, on the theory that the wealth will "trickle down" over the poor...
While Donald & his ilk prefer to paint such things in starkly different terms, it's all the same manipulation based on wealth & class. It's all "class warfare."
protio
Donald - I've said it before, I'll probably say it again, it's not too late to pull out of this rabbithole. You completely humiliate yourself with this stuff. Seriously.
Because no, you did NOT give examples of how the assumption corresponds with reality. You merely cited examples of other people who used this assumption. And as I said, it doesn't matter how many people agree with your assumption, that doesn't make it true. And even if you're relying on the Asimov definition of assumption, then it shows how weak your case is, because it rests entirely on an assumption.
But of course, he was referring to scientific theories which were based on assumptions that were truly unknowable; like black holes and such. Your assumption, on the other hand, is the theory under debate and therefore cannot be used as the basis for itself. As I keep saying, you're essentially saying "My argument is true because I assume that it's true." And that's fine. You can assume anything you want. But once I attack that assumption, you either need to defend it or shut up. And if you can't defend it, you lose, because that was the entire point I was making: That conservatives can't defend this wrong assumption. So sure, you closed your case. But that just means you shouldn't have opened it to begin with because you ended up exactly where you started: With an assumption you couldn't defend. And you didn't refute one point I made. Not even one.
And seriously, you're arguing that proof that Obama is engaging in class warfare is because he's not using the language of class warfare? Dude, that's evidence that he's NOT engaging in class warfare. Class warfare is when someone demonizes one class to make the other classes hate it. That's what the phrase means. And while Republicans do that on a daily basis, Obama is certainly NOT doing it. And you seem to agree with that, except that you insist upon assuming that he's doing it based upon your assumption that he's doing it. That's beyond illogical, Donald.
And as a reminder, you're the one arguing that reality changes based upon unprovable assumptions that we can choose to agree with. And you call ME the postmodernist?? And all because I believe in a rational reality that isn't altered by our beliefs? This is truly sad.
Well, Dr. Biobrain, I have to pick a minor nit. We certainly do alter our perception of reality according to our beliefs, and there are a lot of things we regard as rational and "real" in some sense that depend almost entirely on our beliefs. I'm not sure what "rational reality" is, however. If you mean that there is some objective reality independent of any observer's frame of reference, probably not.
So does Donald Douglas create his own reality? I wouldn't want to guess, but it doesn't seem like one I'd want to live in.
Mahakal - I'm confused. Are you suggesting that there isn't an objective reality independent of any observer's frame of reference? Because I have serious doubts as to the alternative of that. And while most people allow their beliefs to betray their perceptions, I don't think that's an inherent flaw in everyone. Because I try as much as possible to have no beliefs. Just theories with various likelihoods. And that includes everything from the possibility that I don't really exist to the possibility that I'm the only one who exists, and everything in between
And if that's the case and I'm totally open to all this, how can my beliefs possibly distort my perceptions of reality? I mean, I can have honest discussions about any religion, aliens, ghosts, conspiracy theory, or any of these other areas that are pushed by faith-based people. And I generally know more about the subjects than the people who believe in them. And if I didn't know more before the discussion, I certainly will by the time it's over. I absorb everything they say and can run circles around them before long. And that's because they've accepted their beliefs on faith, while I stay above the whole thing and treat it all like a valid theory worth discussing.
I doubt we'll ever resolve this, but I really do think you need to get out of the religion business and start opening your mind to the concept of infinite possibilities. I've never seen a reason to stake a claim to any specific beliefs and find it much more entertaining to consider the possibility of ALL beliefs, without limiting myself to one. Of course, that's always been my personality type and your mileage may vary. Seriously, even as a kid raised Catholic, I never believed in any of that stuff. I was agnostic long before I knew such a concept existed. It wasn't until I met my wife who was raised atheist before I ever understood there to be something outside religion. But all the same, I never believed in any of it.
And that's why I kick so much ass and can run mental circles around everyone else. While they're all hung-up on their petty little problems, beliefs, and wrong assumptions; I keep an open mind to everything and can adjust on the fly. My shit just keeps getting better all the time as I keep taking in new info and building upon a flowing database. Because I just CAN'T believe in any one thing when there are an infinite number of possibilities.
As for Donald, if he's actually creating his own reality, he's doing a pretty piss poor job of it because he keeps getting his ass handed to him by yours truly. No, he's just muddling through the same reality as the rest of us, and keeps getting in trouble when his basic assumptions turn out to be bogus. This couldn't happen if there wasn't an objective reality to base our assumptions on.
"Are you suggesting that there isn't an objective reality independent of any observer's frame of reference?"
Yes. That is the conclusion of twentieth century physics, both relativistic and quantum.
There is no absolute frame of reference.
This is not a religious statement, it is a recognition of scientifically proven fact.
You believe you have no beliefs because your beliefs are capable of being changed, but that does not make them something else. Calling them theories instead of beliefs doesn't make any difference. I am not saying that beliefs must be absolute, they can be based upon a long process of observation and study, they need not be based on blind faith, and they need not, indeed, should not be unalterable. New observations and more study might reveal deeper reasons which will change our beliefs.
Just because you can make a fool of an idiot does not prove anything about "objective reality."
Mahakal - No, there is no absolute frame of reference, but that's a matter of human perception. I doubt we can truly perceive all of reality. But that's an entirely separate issue than if objective reality exists independent of us. Of course it does. Are you suggesting that reality didn't exist before humans did? Did the universe exist before Earth did? Of course. Reality isn't dependent upon us. Don't confuse perception with reality. And if you choose to believe these things, that's fine. But please don't insist that I'm wrong for believing in an objective reality. After all, how could six billion people with their own different perceptions possibly interact unless there was a single objective reality they were working within?
And you still don't understand: My beliefs don't change. I have no beliefs. What's so difficult to understand about that? I honestly believe that there is the possibility that I don't exist. I also believe there is a possibility that you're right about your religious beliefs. I also believe there is a possibility that an alien race created us and our "universe" is little more than a specimen in their laboratory. Seriously, I cannot discount these theories and truly think that everything is possible.
And that's just how I do things. I cannot be tied down by beliefs. I think they're a crutch which limit our ability to truly explore existence. That's fine if you've decided to limit yourself to one theory, but I cannot. I work with probabilities. I think there is a fairly high degree of probability that I exist. I also think it's quite likely that science is right about most of their theories and I use those theories as tools to discover the universe. But I don't "believe" in them. There is no faith here whatsoever. None. Zip. Zero. And if some Supreme Being came to me and established to me that all of this was a dream used to test me, I wouldn't be entirely amazed. That's certainly possible and would really explain quite a lot.
Look, I understand what you're saying, but can't understand why you find the alternative so impossible. Open your mind. Explore the idea that you might be wrong. It doesn't hurt. I myself am a born skeptic and believe in nothing. I accept all possibilities as being possible and think I'm a better person for it. Sure, I have a basic working theory that I use to explain life, or else I wouldn't bother writing this right now; but I'm not glued to it. It's just a working theory that evolves non-stop. But again, this wasn't a decision of mine. It's who I've always been. Not as someone brainwashed into putting faith in science; but as someone who is open to all possibilities.
You can trust in your faith and the things you perceive as being true. Or you can move outside of that and start theorizing about ALL of the possible explanations for our existence. For myself, there is no choice. I have much more fun considering all possibilities and would never limit myself with faith, science, or anything else.
"No, there is no absolute frame of reference, but that's a matter of human perception."
No, it's a matter of fundamental physics, as I said.
"But that's an entirely separate issue than if objective reality exists independent of us. Of course it does."
It depends on who you mean by "us" -- does there exist an objective reality independent of observation? No. Probably not.
"Are you suggesting that reality didn't exist before humans did?"
Not at all. Humans are very recent. Consciousness is not.
Look, if you treat your objectivist viewpoint as a matter of faith, you're quite as much deluded as those you criticize.
Take a look at the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment before you continue spouting off about how your naive materialism is so obviously correct. Or at least learn something about relativity before you claim it's just a matter of human perception that there is no absolute frame of reference.
Mahakal - I'm sorry, but I'm generally unimpressed with people who tell me I need to learn more about a complicated field of study that they won't bother explaining to me. Because you're requiring me to not only study everything about these fields, but also to know how to apply them to your specific theories in order to prove you correct. I'm sorry, but if that's what's required for me to be proven wrong, it's not going to happen.
Either you have to explain what you mean or you don't get to use these arguments. Simply asserting "Science says you're wrong" is just not going to convince anyone. And after all, are you trying to convince me, or simply win a debate? I'm not suggesting that you explain every facet of these things, but a general explanation is in order. Or if you even had a specific blogpost or something that explained it, that'd help. But just pointing me towards the entire field of physics just ain't going to achieve much.
And just so you know, I'm not in love with relativity and am of the opinion that there will be serious revisions to it before they're done. It's my understanding that you really can't understand it without the math. And while people pretend that this was Einstein's theory which is proven by the math, it's actually the opposite. He did the math and then developed the theory to explain it. That's less than convincing. I'm of the uneducated opinion that a much better explanation for the math will be developed. I also think it's possible that aliens gave Einstein the idea in order to throw us off the track so we couldn't develop faster-than-light travel and invade their planet. Not that I believe in aliens, mind you, but the theory does have some plausibility to it.
Beyond that, I fail to see how there is even a tiny shred of sense to what you're suggesting. Again, how can six billion people with different perceptions possibly interact unless they were doing so within a single objective reality? Both sides of a football game may fully expect to win, but they'll both agree to the score when it's over. That sounds like a single reality to me.
And finally, which part of "I think it's possible that I don't exist" don't you understand? Why the attacks on my so-called materialism? I don't have faith that all this exists. I do have a working theory that I use on a daily basis, which tells me not to swerve wildly in traffic and how much to tip waiters; and it's probably not too different from the working theory you use, assuming you tip 20% and don't swerve in traffic. The only difference is that you're attached to a specific belief about reality and I'm not. You think you've got this consciousness thing which, from my perspective, sounds like a single objective truth that you think we should all agree to. I don't. I don't know how the universe was made and can't imagine why you've done so. I can theorize about an infinite number of possible origins and find them all fascinating. I could never settle on just one.
And again, that's why I'm smarter than everyone else; because I can fully explore ideas without being limited by any beliefs. By the time I'm done, not only can I explain how someone else is wrong, I can make their own arguments better than they do. Of course, I still can't do that with you, because you put so little of your beliefs out there. I can't decide if you do that because you don't want to be mocked or if it's because there isn't much more for you to offer. But in either case, you're a fairly frustrating person to debate. I want to get into your head, but you just won't let me in. But I assure you that I can never accept your theories of the universe any more than I could accept the Catholicism that was hoisted on me as a child. My brain just doesn't work that way. But all the same, I'm always interested in hearing about them. How else can I make sure I'm smarter than you, other than by understanding your ideas? But I can never adopt them to the exclusion of all others.
And one last thing: Please don't get offended by my irreverance towards your beliefs. It's just my thing and isn't meant to be mocking. I'm just an informal guy and think life's better if we make it more fun. But it really isn't meant to be any sort of insult or anything. I just like to keep things informal and think it actually helps in understanding what we're talking about if we drop the pretense and put things into perspective.
And overall, you really need to get out of the mindset that you're having the same discussion you've ever had with anyone else. Maybe I'm just some schmuck with dreams of grandeur who isn't half as clever as he imagines. Or maybe I'm the smartest fucking person in the world. It could only help you if you went with that second theory, if only to help train you to state your case better. And hey, it's even possible I'm the one who created you and gave you false theories of reality. You might not believe that, but it's certainly possible. And there's nothing to say its any less plausible than your own theory of the universe; particularly not if you don't believe in an objective reality.
When you get down to it, we can't even come up with percentages for how likely one reality is over another. Even if God himself explained it all to you, you'd never truly know if he was lying or perhaps being deceived by an even greater being. So how can we settle on just one belief and call that the "true" one? And that's what's odd, for as much as you're attacking me for having a working theory of an objective reality, you're the one tied down to a specific belief system, to the exclusion of all others. And I'm the one that enjoys playing in all of them.
Sure, I believe in an objective reality, but that's just so I know that I'll get hurt if I swerve in traffic and that rejecting the material world won't make the pain go away. Beyond that, I'm open to anything.
Why do you believe I'm the one tied down to a specific belief system to the exclusion of all others? Which belief system is that? Do you even have a clue what I believe?
Most of what you write in response to me here is nonsense. You don't like that your objectivism is wrong, too bad. Just because you can't imagine the alternative doesn't make it true.
Here's a nice video I posted awhile back that may help explain the effect of special relativity to you without all the complicated math. And you could just read Wikipedia to learn about the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment.
I'm not going to attempt to explain all this in a comment, but I can give you lots more links to help if you actually want to learn something.
Mahakal - As you realize, I only have the vaguest idea of what you believe because you refuse to explain it; which I find extremely frustrating. It's like you just don't want me to have a target I can actually debate with so you can act smug in believing that you're more open-minded than I am. I know it has something to do with your theory that the material world doesn't really exist and that we're all one in some grand consciousness which you happen to know the name of. Beyond that, you don't seem willing to say anything.
And that sounds like a firm belief to me. In contrast, my parents are traditional Catholics and their beliefs require them to absolutely reject your beliefs. And you think they're mistaken in doing so. You think they should be more open-minded and see how their beliefs fit into your theory.
In other words, you believe they are wrong in some of their beliefs. I, on the other hand, do not. I think they might possibly be right, just as I think you might be right. And while I'd prefer that everyone saw things the way I do, I acknowledge that I might be totally wrong and could burn in Hell for my mistake. And I'm fine with that, as I couldn't be any other way. Again, they think you're wrong, you think they're wrong for that, and I refuse to take a position on any of it and remain agnostic on the subject.
As for the video you gave, please don't insult my intelligence with such low-grade high school drivel. I already knew all that. Just so you understand, I did take two semesters of Physics in college and got an easy A both times, due to my ability to understand the material, as well as my love for hardcore science fiction. And yes, we covered relativity and I did well on those tests, but no, I don't think it made much sense. My teacher was brilliant, but I still didn't think he made sense on this topic.
Beyond that, your video proved nothing. It was talking about the perceptions of the people, saying that the two individuals would perceive things differently. But it did not establish that the event happened in both ways. While the narrator said they're both right, he did so only as an assertion to explain what Einstein's theory states; but the video didn't establish how it made sense. I don't see how the lightening bolts didn't strike just as the outside observer saw them. After all, if the front bolt hit before the back bolt, he would have seen it that way. He didn't. Therefore, the person inside the train was deceived due to the motion of the train. And that would be the single reality that they both were experiencing from separate reference points. Again, frame of reference involves perceptions of observers, not the reality itself. But just so you know, I also don't think time exists outside of being a useful human construct.
And perhaps you'd care to explain how my response was nonsense, as your assertion of that was pointless. As I explained, you're far more of the objectivist than I. You believe in relativity. You believe in a grand consciousness that we're all a part of. And I believe that I might have created all of this as a trick and that the only beings that exist are you and I. And I also believe that reality might exist just as it appears to exist, with no Creator or ulterior consciousness. Who's the one with objectivism again?
Sure, I have a working theory of an objective reality that I use to explain my day-to-day experiences. And it's probably not too different from the objective reality you use, as I'm sure you won't jump off of buildings to see if belief will allow you to fly. The only difference between us is that you think you've got a grand explanation for everything, while I understand that such explanations are impossible. Again, you've got this all backwards. You think that I'm tied to the reality that you believe are vibrations from a grand consciousness, while I insist that I have no such beliefs.
You refuse to believe me, but I assure you I'm serious. That's probably why you think I'm saying nonsense, because you can't believe that I'm not the small-minded literalist who can only believe in his day-to-day observations. And so you think I'm saying nonsense because it doesn't fit into your preconceived ideas about my so-called beliefs that I continually reject. But I can most easily explain all of this to you, if you'd stop insisting that I believe things that I don't believe and finally get around to asking for an explanation.
And finally, I'll ask this a third time because it was buried both other times and perhaps you didn't see it: How can six billion people with separate perceptions and beliefs interact unless they were doing so within a single objective reality?
So you don't think special relativity makes sense, and even though it's been explained to you and you've taken physics you think it's bullshit?
You're like someone who thinks the earth is flat and the sun goes around it, because it seems that way to him, and no matter how many pictures from space you don't want to believe it is really a round ball that goes around the sun.
What is the purpose of debating, then? If you are happy with your disbelief in physics, and have another working model of reality that suits you well enough, who am I to make you believe otherwise?
If you have an interest in better understanding the intersection of physics and consciousness studies, you might want to read a few books on the subject. I'd recommend The Tao of Physics, by Fritjof Capra, and a really strong recommendation you read Quantum Psychology, by Robert Anton Wilson.
As to your final question, if we're all sharing one consciousness, what does it matter if we have different experiences of reality?
Mahakal,
Your biggest fallacy in my opinion is assuming that science, in your case, relativity has the FINAL answer. Science is dynamic process we use to quantify nature up to our own limitations.
Newtonian physics was gospel until Einstein came around to laying the smack down with his relativity theory. Just because Einstein proved that there are different frames of reference, that does not in any way prove the argument that there are different "Realities".
YOu are probably familiar with the big CERN experiment? who's to say that this won't reveal some other understanding that distorts Einstein's relativity and changes our understanding of objective reality? That is why, I am with biobrain in considering the existence of an objective reality, that is separate from our own understanding and perception of it.
CS,
I never said that relativity was the final answer to anything, and in fact I made a specific point of directing the good doctor's attention to some experimental results of quantum physics, and I would encourage you to review the same.
Your faith in objectivism is noted, but unconfirmed by the evidence.
So you don't think special relativity makes sense, and even though it's been explained to you and you've taken physics you think it's bullshit?
That's what I said. And I'm of the opinion that you don't really understand it either. Because if you did, it seems you should have realized that your video didn't explain it. It was a demonstration of what Einstein's theory states, but there was no explanation as to why the theory is correct. Or perhaps you'd like to explain to me what I missed from the video. Believe me, I'd like to understand what I'm missing. But every time I try, it all makes sense until we get to the "special" aspect of it, and then it's like we're teleported to the conclusion without getting the magic step that explains it. I've been given the impression that the "magic" step can only be understood with the math, but you suggested otherwise. I'd really like to hear it.
And here's my problem: The demonstration in the video makes sense according to the normal rules of physics. The lightening bolts hit both the front and the back of the train at the same time. And someone stationed outside the train would properly perceive this because he was outside the train and watched it happen. But the person inside would see the front flash first, because she was traveling forward and would run into that light first. And because she was traveling away from the back flash, it'd take longer to reach her. So she'd think the front one happened before the back one. But she'd be wrong, because it just took longer for it to reach her.
That's how I see it and that's in accordance with the normal rules of physics. Similarly, someone far from a lightening strike would think the lightening happened before the thunder, due to the difference in speeds between sound and light. But someone who was at the scene of the strike would know that they happened at the same time. And if he was smart, he'd understand how the lightening bolt caused the thunder. And that seems like the basic idea in the video.
But according to the video, both people would be correct; ie, the bolts hit at the same time and also at different times. That makes no sense to me. I would LOVE for you to explain this to me. Trust me, I really want to be the smartest dude in the world, but this relativity thing continues to elude me. If you get it, please lay down the truth for me. If you don't think I'll give my best effort to understand, then you shouldn't trust anything you read in my blog. I don't screw around, which is why I won't pretend to understand things I don't understand. My shit is solid.
By the way, I don't reject physics. I reject this one area of physics, which is a special application that isn't normally experienced. That's what makes it so special. So please don't suggest I'm anti-science simply because I don't understand a theory that no human has ever experienced.
As for the final question, that wasn't an answer. Because we DO all share the same experiences; or so it seems. As I said earlier, even when both sides of a football game think they'll win, they always agree to the score by the end of the game. Similarly, when I'm in traffic, everyone else seems to perceive the same traffic patterns I see and we don't crash into one another. Finally, when I type the letter "A" you don't think it's a "B".
That seems like a single objective reality to me. Now, unless I'm living in this consciousness on my own, we must be sharing something. You're reading what I'm writing, even though you had no expectation that I even exist. How can this be possible if we're not experiencing the same objective reality?
And if that's not the case, I think I deserve an explanation. I'm sorry, but you never explain anything. You merely assert that I'm wrong and too close-minded to get it. And for as much as I explain my point, you keep holding back. That's very frustrating. I doubt you'll find a more open-minded skeptic than me and if the only people you can convince are the ones who already believe, you shouldn't even bother. I'm totally up for a good debate. Not only do I want to pick your brain for new ideas, but it helps me hone my own brain. But you really don't seem interested in explaining anything.
And hey, don't do this for me. Do this for yourself. Even if I don't understand what you're saying, I'm a skilled enough debater to force you to finetune your own understanding. So bring it. I'm willing to listen, if you're willing to explain. And I definitely would like explanations for special relativity and how six billion people can interact in a non-objective reality. These concepts elude me.
You know, Dr. Biobrain, I'm not a physics instructor and I'm not about to try to teach you special and general relativity. There are places on the web you can learn about this stuff for free, some of it might even be appropriate for a person of your particular intellectual gifts.
It's not that there can't be a better theory and it is likely there will be when a good theory of quantum gravitation may come to be accepted. But any such theory must account for the same experimental results which prove that relativity is correct as far as its ability to make predictions.
Arguing with people who don't believe in the moon landings is a pointless waste of time, I'm sure you'll agree. It is as ridiculous to deny the fundamental physics of the twentieth century.
Without special relativity we would not have E=mc^2, the equation which establishes the relationship of matter to energy and the speed of light. Perhaps you doubt that this equation is true, and perhaps nuclear weapons don't really work.
As to what seems real to you, and your desire to understand what I have been trying to explain to you all along, despite your unhappiness at being unable to contest it effectively, the books I recommended to you should help you a great deal.
I'll even save you a few bucks because I found a link to RAW's book online.
Happy reading, and I hope you'll let me know what you think or even write a blog post on it sometime.
Mahakal - So you're not even going to explain the video to me? I explained what my difficulty was, but you're not going to explain the mistake I'm making? Or why you think it explained Einstein's theory? Because not only did I not understand what it said, I don't even understand how it was an explanation. I don't think it was meant to be one. It was a demonstration of the theory, not an explanation of it.
And we're not talking fundamental physics, which I assure you I understand quite well. We're talking about one very specific rule of physics that doesn't appear in regular life. I totally understand general relativity, which is an unrelated theory. It's the special one that's never made sense to me.
And again, you're getting it backwards. The math came first. The theory came later. The theory did NOT give us E=MC2. That came from the math and the theory was developed to explain the implications of the math equation. This is the same mistake most folks make: They assume the math proves Einstein's theory. It didn't. The math might be true, but that doesn't prove that the theory is correct. And until I understand it, I refuse to believe in it. As I've said before, I can't believe in things I can't understand. I don't understand how anyone can.
And I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call bullshit on you. And if that's the end of the debate, then it wasn't me ending it. You've explained nothing. You haven't even attempted an explanation of anything. I'm sorry, but I can only condlude that you have no idea what you're talking about.
This is in accordance with my long held position that anyone who can't explain something to someone who is willing to listen just doesn't know what they're talking about. And that certainly seems to be the case now. I'm begging for you to even ATTEMPT an explanation, but all you can do is tell me to research it all for myself.
Well, that's not going to happen. While I'm intrigued to learn more about your theory, I'm not so interested that I'd ever bother researching it. There are so many equally compelling explanations for the universe that I can't imagine why I'd bother spending hours learning about yours. In that same time, I could invent lots of equally plausible explanations. So your explanation holds no special meaning for me beyond me getting to discuss it with you.
And if you don't want to bother explaining it to me, I guess that's the end of it. I really don't see why you bothered if you're not going to explain it. But again, I have the strong suspicion that you just can't explain any of it. You could prove me wrong, or we can just end this. Your choice.
General and special relativity are unrelated, now? Fascinating.
Yes, we're done here for now.
Mahakal - I'm sorry if I'm not impressed by people who insist that they understand things that they refuse to explain. You can act like some super genius when it comes to this stuff, but I'm quite confident that you've accepted this theory on faith and understand it less than I do. Particularly as you keep pressuring me to accept relativity on faith, to the point of shaming me for not accepting it. I keep explaining that I CAN'T accept things on faith, and can't believe things that I don't understand, but you continue to insist that I do; all evidence to the contrary.
I'm sorry that you don't like having your theories challenged. But I'm even sorrier that you never attempted a defense of them.
Oh, and just so you know, I looked this stuff up and realized that it was General Relativity that I had more trouble with and that Special Relativity was the easier one. I always get the two confused, I suppose because I keep thinking the special one is more special. But it was actually Einstein's attempt to reconcile his special theory with traditional physics that I think the mistakes happened. While it does have much predictive ability, it's far from conclusive. And even still, there are a few gaps in Special Relativity that I don't get, which includes your train video.
Even Wikipedia doesn't attempt an explanation of that one. As it says: "Now, we might try to decide if one observer is right and the other wrong. However, Einstein's other assumption is that the two inertial frames (the platform vs. the moving train) must operate under equivalent physical laws. This means that simultaneity cannot be determined in two different reference frames."
And note how this relies on Einstein's other assumption. And it's the one that makes no sense to me. Because these ARE the same physical laws and to suggest otherwise would be to suggest that lightening doesn't cause thunder. And that's an absurdity. Or so it seems to me and I can't find any explanation to reconcile this. And as I keep saying, I can't accept theories that I don't understand.
You can act as superior as you want to me, but that only shows how little you understand about the theories you're relying upon. This could have been a good debate, but instead, you insist that I spend hours on my own to prove myself wrong on theories that I've been unable to grasp for years. I'm telling you, I've tried wrapping my brain around these concepts and they make no sense. That you don't see the flaws with them would suggest that you understand them less than I do.
Mahakal,
Your pompous posturing is sort of laughable and ironic considering that you contradict your position right here:
"New observations and more study might reveal deeper reasons which will change our beliefs. "
Your insistence that there a reality independent of our own perceptions and scientific calculations doesn't exist sort contradicts your above assertion doesn't it?
Even Einstein himself was a noted agnostic. In other words he would have acknowledged that there may be an objective reality that is separate from our own perceptions. At the expense of blind faith in Einstein, let me just propose that I'll give my faith to Einstein's understanding an interpretation of his own theory being better than yours.
Also consider this - If there wasn't an objective reality then is it a shear concidence that the existence and harmony of life on earth is just a matter of coinciding realities? Seems to me like you're the one putting faith in the lottery.
I will make one final comment, because I don't like to be rude, and maybe it will help you, or maybe not, but you really should read the books that I helpfully recommended if you want to understand better. This is not the place to be educated on such things, and it's not something worth debating.
Two observers have different experiences of the lightning, both are in equivalent inertial frames of reference, neither frame of reference is superior to the other. Therefore you cannot say that the platform is the true reality, and the train is somehow not.
It might be clearer if we made two trains going in opposite directions, in which case the lightning strike would hit the front of the first train first and then the back to an observer on the same train, but to an observer on the second train it would hit the back of the first train before it hit the front.
There is no such thing as a "stationary" frame of reference, in case you want to argue that. We are all moving through space at enormous speeds, even if just as passengers on spaceship Earth.
It appears that we share a common frame of reference because we are rarely moving at significant speeds with respect to one another. But a shared subjective is not the same thing as an "objective" frame.
I hope this helps. I won't waste more time arguing it because it really is well proven science.
And relativity is not nearly so weird as quantum physics, which is also well proven by reproducible experiment.
Have fun reading Robert Anton Wilson. I think he's a great writer and very entertaining. I never got a chance to meet him while he was alive, but I did attend his memorial. If you can grok what he is saying, you will have a much easier time understanding what I am saying.
Btw, CS, I can't even figure out what you are saying. I'm not sure you even understand the words you use.
wv: zingwese
Post a Comment