Jump to content

     


Photo
- - - - -

Why I Reverted To Islam


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#21 tanker

tanker

    Full Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Location:UK near the sea
  • Religion: Christianity

Posted 18 September 2015 - 03:56 PM

1. Perhaps you'd explain the circles I'm in since you obviously could never get into such a state? That maybe is the difference you show all the arrogance of knowing and thinking you but not others have understood - I prefer to acknowledge my ignorance and in humility seek for truth. You have a touching faith in logic but seem not to understand its limitations and that paradoxes do exist.

2. What rubbish, if I can find words better than my own I'll use them. Incidentally, I have a copy of Bury's book and have done some for a great number of years and have read the wholbook so please stop your ugly implications. In any case what is wrong with quoting?

3. Well in some things all we can do for now is have a convincing argument - is there something intrinsically wrong with that? Don't you appreciate what it tells us that Newtons laws were eventually shown to be incomplete?

4. No emergent means that when we create a system from parts it may exibit quite unexpected behaviours which we could not have predicted. In other words even when we fully understand a component we still cannot predict every state of the system in which it is placed. Based on your comment it's not a question of God being all knowing but rather he made the universe as it is.

#22 tanker

tanker

    Full Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Location:UK near the sea
  • Religion: Christianity

Posted 18 September 2015 - 04:07 PM

Perhaps you would point out the circles i find myself in? You of course could not possibly enter such a thinking state? That's the problem with arrogance, you always think everyone else is an idiot.

I've read and had a copy of Bury's book for many years so keep you patronising to yourself. In any case what on earth is wrong about quoting something or using words that are better that you own?

In many case all we have is a convincing argument - don't you see the implication of Newtons laws being shown to be incomplete.

Emergent means that when a system is assembled it may exibit behaviours that we could not have predicted even if we perfectly understood the behaviours of its parts. I rember many years ago in mathematics the lecturer having to wheels that were perfectly predictable on their own but when he connected that in a particular way the motion became totally random. Have you never heard of the butterfly effect?

#23 Donald_M

Donald_M

    Full Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:أبحث عن الله
  • Religion: Non-religion

Posted 19 September 2015 - 09:06 AM

Thanks for leaving both copies of your message behind.

It is a window into an otherwise censored world.

 

1: Are your negative words a direct response to my being so sure of myself?

 

2: Read the book again. Quote from a position of understanding. Or don't.

 

3: Facepalm!

 

4: Emergent properties are not understood!

    If our knowledge of a system was 'perfect'

    foresight would be possible.

    And they would not be called emergent, they'd just be properties.

 

    Random is yet another word used to describe ignorance.

    If I toss 200 marbles into a bag and give it a shake,

    knowing the position of each marble is not impossible.

 

    If I manage to 'pull-out' my favourite marble, it may be called luck or chance.

    But 'chance' is yet another descriptor of a system who's variables are too complicated to immediately assess.

 

    I build components for aircraft; Physics and Engineering are my life...

    Your random-wheel anecdote will be a story that I tell when I go to work again on Monday.

 

    'Totally random' refers to a system's complexity. Not it's impossibility.



#24 tanker

tanker

    Full Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Location:UK near the sea
  • Religion: Christianity

Posted 19 September 2015 - 11:13 AM

1: Are your negative words a direct response to my being so sure of myself?

No, it's just that being sure that you are right is not always a good thing since it essentially becomes a defensive position where one's response is not to consider what has been said but simply defend you own position soI that one learns nothing.
 
2: Read the book again. Quote from a position of understanding. Or don't.

No dea what your asking here but it's another arrogant response from you that you understand the book but I don't. I made the quote as a starting position for discussion but it's seems that is something you don't want to engage is.
 
3: Facepalm!

Aptly describes you as one who only values his own opinion
 
4: Emergent properties are not understood!  If our knowledge of a system was 'perfect' foresight would be possible.
    And they would not be called emergent, they'd just be properties.

Well look it up yourself if you don't understand - there is no shame in not known how something. But is this perfect knowledge possible? Let's take a coin, we have perfect knowledge of that but I still cannot predict exactly what the outcome will be of any toss, I can only ever know it's probability.

Random is a difficult concept to define for obvious reasons. But I wonder how you can know the position of each marble without looking inside the bag. Again all we can know is probabilities not certainties. What you seem to be suggesting is if we could make a perfect coin and a perfect tossing machine in a vacuum we would always get the same result. But really this is patent nnsence and the quantum world shows it to be so.
 
5. I build components for aircraft; Physics and Engineering are my life...  Your random-wheel anecdote will be a story that I tell when I go to work again on Monday.

I never mentioned random wheels but just two wheels that when connected in certain ways producer unpredictable and random behaviour. Neither did I say anything about impossibility for obviously one CAN connect wheels together and see what happens - the example is not about whether one can construct such a system but whether you can predict it motions. Why don't you look up butterfly effects or Black swan events
 
    'Totally random' refers to a system's complexity. Not it's impossibility.[/quote]

#25 Donald_M

Donald_M

    Full Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:أبحث عن الله
  • Religion: Non-religion

Posted 20 September 2015 - 11:54 AM

1: Every hole in our understanding of the natural world, isn't a receptacle for any old fanciful nonsense.

 

2: My apologies. This book is of no use to our discussions here. It's conclusions were out-dated before the book was even released.

 

3: I wouldn't get far if that was true though, would I?

 

4: We do not have perfect knowledge of a coin and any system to which it may belong. You are still yet to grasp the depth of this problem.

    As understanding of any system increases with clarity, the numerical probability of predicting the outcome also increases.

 

    'But really this is patent nnsence and the quantum world shows it to be so.'

    This sounds like something you feel you have the proof for... Please do your best to explain.

 

5: Don't worry about the label I assigned to your comment about 'random-wheels', it is just a label. The context wont get lost...

    If you look into it further, you will see that the 'traditional' definition of random does not apply to Black Swan events.

 

    This may be where you have been going wrong this entire time... Conflating random input, with random output.

 

    https://en.wikipedia...te_distribution

 

    Let me know if you still don't get it. It really is quite simple once you have the basics of calculus.



#26 tanker

tanker

    Full Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Location:UK near the sea
  • Religion: Christianity

Posted 21 September 2015 - 06:38 PM

Now you dismiss Bury's book as if everything it says is false. Arrogance again. Fanciful nonsense? You should look at the history of science and see how long on the one hand 'fanciful nonsense' lasted in the mind of scientists as well as what seemed like 'fanciful nonsense' turned out to be correct. That's your trouble, you think it's easy to decide.

You need to take to heart what Descartes said way back in 1683 "But so soon as I had achieved the entire course of study at the close of which one is usually received into the ranks of the learned, I entirely changed my opinion. For I found myself embarrassed with so many doubts and errors that it seemed to me that the effort to instruct myself had no effect other than the increasing discovery of my own ignorance.

We do not and cannot have perfect knowledge of any system, it's impossible and we know it is. Surely you know this and why it is so? Have you heard of Gödel's incompleteness theorem?

Everything in the Quantum world is based on probabilities. As Duncan Watts says in his book 'Everything is Obvious' predictions about complex systems are highly subject to the law of diminishing returns: The first pieces of information help a lot, but very quickly you exhaust whatever potential for improvement exists so it's you that does not understand the 'depth' but are deluding yourself that certainty is possible.

There is no adequate definition of random traditional or otherwise, is it not obvious that if you can define random it ceases to be random? Interesting your comment on Black Swan events, but tell me, would they be preventable with more data, well that's your view is it not?

Funny you mentioning calculus because you're essentially talking about events that lead to X/0 or places we have no idea what's going on.

Let me know if you still don't get it. It really far from simple.

#27 Donald_M

Donald_M

    Full Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:أبحث عن الله
  • Religion: Non-religion

Posted 22 September 2015 - 12:16 AM

I've not dismissed his book 'as if everything it says is false'. Go easy on the hyperbole.

There are some wonderful things in there, but with regards to our particular discussion

his ideas on the matter were already being proven faulty, elsewhere, at the time.

 

Gödel's incompleteness theorem does not apply to a system of this kind... You are mistaken.

A physician compounds further axioms to counter such discrepancies in real world scenarios.

'Surely you know this and why it is so?'

 

Never heard of Duncan Watts, but I'll have a look.

 

Everything (period) is based on probabilities.

Our ability to understand the cause of an event, improves the chances of our survival.

Which is to say that the 'random' associated with any given action, is reduced.

 

Random DOES cease to be random once defined. That is the point.

I can select a marble at random (ignoring all data) or I can take one based on all available data.

'Random' only exists when we are not looking at the pattern. Deliberately or otherwise.

 

'Only that thing is free which exists by the necessities of its own nature, and is determined in its actions by itself alone'.
Baruch Spinoza (critic of Descartes).
 
 

You might be tangled-up within your own misunderstandings here, especially with regards Black Swan events.

Please read more into this, I'm sure you wouldn't be asking me half these questions otherwise...

 

The Igon Value Problem describes:

Error/s in communication and/or comprehension attributed to the lack of pertinent knowledge on a topic.

 

It is not simple. It is very difficult.



#28 tanker

tanker

    Full Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Location:UK near the sea
  • Religion: Christianity

Posted 22 September 2015 - 10:49 AM

It always seemed to me that Bury has more to say about freedom than free will. But tell me what other books have you looked at?

What kind of system are you thinking about? If it's a physical system then in principle it could be described mathematically so please explain? Incidentally, I simply noted the theorem so it's hard to see in what sense I was 'mistaken' my intention was to show that some things cannot be proved to be true/false or even proven.

Not quite sure why you mentioned 'physician' but in any case one can only add consistent axioms into some minimum set.

Of course it is true that in general knowing more improves our chances of systems being predictable but we cannot always know the causes of failure only sometime a guess.

You seem to have created a paradox. You have or seem to have defined random as not looking for a pattern presumably in the sense that if one can't see a pattern it must be random? This looks circular to me.

I'm not sure I'm asking question only making comments on the impossibility of your certainty. You seem a little muddled since I did not describe Black Swan events simply pointed to the fact that uncertainty exists and can lead to catastrophic events

I take it you mention the Igon value problem to point out you are an expert and I am not? Fine, I'll pretend inferiority and encourage your arrogance for arrogance is the camouflage of insecurity. (I expect you know who said these two things).

#29 Donald_M

Donald_M

    Full Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:أبحث عن الله
  • Religion: Non-religion

Posted 22 September 2015 - 12:05 PM

This is growing rather tedious, Tanker.

 

I could probably teach you how to play the guitar or learn some Japanese,

but teaching you physics is likely to be a 10 year endeavour.

I haven't learned what I have, from Youtube videos and public forums. It was hard laborious work!

 

In a nutshell, Godels theorem applies to theoretical physics and not experimental.

 

A 'guess' is nothing but a step into the unknown. An admittance of ignorance.

 

A paradox can be posited but never created.

If no knowledge of the marbles is available or requested, the more random the outcome is said to be.

If you are ignorant of a thing and it's properties, how can the output be anything other than random?

 

If we were to find a completely new substance, we could say that until we establish something as consistent within it,

all data collected was nonsense, random, junk etc.

 

Deliberately going out of one's way to achieve 'random' is a completely different sort of random. I hope you can see the difference.

 

'...simply pointed to the fact that uncertainty exists and can lead to catastrophic events'.

Then you need not of said a thing, as this is obvious to us all.

 

I like Steven Pinker. It was he who coined the name of this problem.

Trying to teach you physics will naturally produce this effect (and I'm not even an expert).

 

Don't be ashamed of your ignorance and keep lashing out!

That last sentence is a bit immature. And I can't help but read it with the voice of a 16 year old adolescent inside my head.



#30 tanker

tanker

    Full Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Location:UK near the sea
  • Religion: Christianity

Posted 23 September 2015 - 10:06 AM

Why don't we have a proper discussion?

How about we start by you commenting on the truth or otherwise of the statement that the more we know only serves to widen our circle of ignorance.

#31 Donald_M

Donald_M

    Full Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:أبحث عن الله
  • Religion: Non-religion

Posted 23 September 2015 - 12:31 PM

I'm struggling, Tanker.

 

I'm guessing you don't see it.

But that question has very little specificity;

The language is muddy and unclear & is no basis for a 'proper discussion'.

 

The numerical value of our ignorance was once equal to 100%

Where 100% is equal to all the information it is possible to know.

Do you think that this percentage has increased or decreased?

 

Discovering new things will highlight the direction in which we should point our gadgets...

But does the number of things we are ignorant of, actually increase?

 

Please be more specific.