Sandbox (4)

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.

394 thoughts on “Sandbox (4)

  1. J-Mac: Hey Sal,

    Great job on Basener/Sanford follow up !
    I was just reviewing my stuff on QM and consciousness and came across this video. Have you seen it?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRSBaq3vAeY

    HEY THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I put your link in my public diary of cool things:
    http://creationevolutionuniversity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=142&p=748#p748

    I noticed on of their instruments said “Thor Labs”. I did business with them for a related experiments with laser interferometery.

    The video talked about tensors. Yikes, I’m so rusty on the math. Although none of the QM I used was framed in terms of tensors.

    I’ve have it on my “to do if I get around to it” to look at the Global Consciousness Project analysis by Peter Morris regarding the speed of light. Thanks for sparking my re-interest in these things.

    FYI: Peter Morris analysis of Global Consciousness project. It’s boring unless you’re into relativity, but it connects quantum mechanics and relativity. Since I mentioned it, here it is, but I barely understood a fraction of the paper. I’m planning to write Peter Morris since the experiment I’m running with the Thor Labs equipment is related to another experiment Morris was involved with.
    http://www.academia.edu/33385996/Evidence_for_Cahills_dynamical_space

  2. Hey all,

    I’m still thinking about propositional verses experiential knowledge.

    Before relativity was tested a journalist asked Einstein what he would do if it turned out if his theory was wrong. He replied “Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord. The theory is correct.”

    I think we can agree that Einstein “knew” that Relativity was correct before the experiment.

    Do you think his knowledge of that correctness increased in some way when he learned that the experiment was successful?

    Thanks in advance.

    peace

  3. Scientists test theories for a reason, fifth. Not just because they’re bored and have nothing better to do.

  4. fifthmonarchyman:
    Hey all,

    I’m still thinking about propositional verses experiential knowledge.

    Before relativity was tested a journalist asked Einstein what he would do if it turned out if his theory was wrong. He replied “Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord. The theory is correct.”

    I think we can agree that Einstein “knew” that Relativity was correct before the experiment.

    Do you think his knowledge of that correctness increased in some way when he learned that the experiment was successful?

    Thanks in advance.

    peace

    I would argue that Einstein knew both Special and General Relativity were correct theories because he had already tested them in his head. He had done the math and visualized how space-time must work and then “played with the consequences” of that idea, so to speak. So he’d already confirmed his hypotheses through experimentation. It’s just that most people don’t have his particular understanding or brain activity to be able to do it like he did.

  5. Robin: I would argue that Einstein knew both Special and General Relativity were correct theories because he had already tested them in his head.

    I agree,

    My question is, did his knowledge change when he learned of the confirming observations that took place during the 1919 total solar eclipse?

    Is knowledge a binary thing (he knew or he did not know) or is it a continuum he knew at (70% before the observation and 90% after)?

    peace

  6. Robin: I would argue that Einstein knew both Special and General Relativity were correct theories because he had already tested them in his head. He had done the math and visualized how space-time must work and then “played with the consequences” of that idea, so to speak. So he’d already confirmed his hypotheses through experimentation. It’s just that most people don’t have his particular understanding or brain activity to be able to do it like he did.

    I’d disagree… Quantum Mechanics has never been contradicted or proven wrong by any experiments… And yet the unification of general relatively and quantum field theory has proven elusive unless one of them is wrong…
    I’d say that GR is more likely to be wrong than QFT as Einstein himself had doubts of the nature of time calling it an illusion…
    Quantum mechanics has already indicated that time and distance on subatomic level either don’t exist or they don’t matter…

  7. J-Mac: And yet the unification of general relatively and quantum field theory has proven elusive unless one of them is wrong…

    Couldn’t they both be correct but one or the other or both be incomplete?

    peace

  8. fifthmonarchyman: Couldn’t they both be correct but one or the other or both be incomplete?

    peace

    Anything is possible… I’d say both are” incomplete” in the sense that dark energy that makes up 73% of the universe could be the unifying piece… But nobody knows what it is but we know it exists and partiality what it does… such as accelerating the expansion of the universe at mind boggling cosmological constant @ 10 ^ 120

  9. J-Mac: I’d say both are” incomplete”

    me too, it’s just important to remember incomplete is not the same thing as wrong.

    peace

  10. I think that this is fascinating.

    quote:
    “There are only a certain number of good ways to be a spider in these ecosystems, and evolution repeatedly finds those ways,”
    end quote:

    from here

    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/hawaii-stick-spider-evolution-predictability/555149/

    I’m a big fan of Michael Denton’s principle of plenitude and the idea of constructing a periodic table of species. I wish that more focus was placed on that sort of stuff.

    peace

  11. dazz: Denton’s?

    That’s where I first encountered the idea and he does a good job of explaining it IMO

    peace

  12. fifthmonarchyman: That’s where I first encountered the idea and he does a good job of explaining it IMO

    peace

    So all those pesky evolutionary intermediates must exist, right? Now all IDiots need to do is to find some crocoduck fossil

  13. dazz: So all those pesky evolutionary intermediates must exist, right?

    That is not the idea I’m talking about at all.

    Denton points out that the same general phenotypical “forms” often reappear in different biological species and occupy the same sorts of niches in different locations and times.

    He thinks this perhaps points to some fundamental laws constraining evolution like the banks of a river.

    here is a money quote from the book:

    “The entire process of biological evolution from the origin of life to the emergence of man was somehow directed from the beginning.”

    end quote:

    peace

  14. fifthmonarchyman: That is not the idea I’m talking about at all.

    Should you though?

    First things first. Does Denton mention in his book the principle of plenitude is not his idea at all? I’m not even going to bother checking. It either makes you, or him look like an asshole. My money is on he mentions it, which makes you look like an asshole (again) and the rest of Denton’s book makes him look like an asshole.

  15. I’m guessing, based on that, that the gist of his book is to link convergent evolution to this philosophical principle and then pretend God is a reasonable explanation to convergent evolution. Yawn

  16. fifthmonarchyman: He thinks this perhaps points to some fundamental laws constraining evolution like the banks of a river.

    No shit sherlock! They’re called… wait for it: The laws of nature!

    fifthmonarchyman: The entire process of biological evolution from the origin of life to the emergence of man was somehow directed from the beginning

    Cracks me up how evolution deniers like you are totally incapable of noticing the extreme irony in your support that quote. And even though I have not and will not read Denton’s book, I’m willing to bet he utterly fails to support it

  17. dazz: Does Denton mention in his book the principle of plenitude is not his idea at all?

    Actually I think he is using the old idea of the principle of plenitude as simply a jumping off point for his own original ideas.

    That’s why I called it Denton’s principle of plenitude.

    dazz: I’m guessing, based on that, that the gist of his book is to link convergent evolution to this philosophical principle and then pretend God is a reasonable explanation to convergent evolution.

    I don’t even think Denton is a theist. I’m quite sure he is not a traditional theist in the Judeo-Christian tradition. He certainly does not discuss God as an explanation for anything if memory serves me.

    The thrust of the book is to discuss if life on earth would be different if we ran the tape again and by extension ask what we could expect life on other planets to look like.

    dazz: I’m not even going to bother checking.

    That seems to be the consistent pattern here 😉

    I wonder if it’s part of what it means to be a skeptic

    peace

  18. fifthmonarchyman,

    The thing is that, if the principle of plenitude was correct, all possible life forms should exist, yet what we see is life constrained by evolution and common descent. Of course you missed the point, no surprises there. Creationists are wired to believe that constraints are a weakness of theories when it exactly the opposite. What can you expect from someone who believes positting some omnipotent goo is a (good) explanation of anything?

    Denton’s book is obviously the emptienth installment of the same old disco tute IDiot crap: look at stuff and proclaim design or “directedness”. No attempt at explaining anything, just borrow other’s ideas and torture them to pretend they support their stupid preconceived notions

  19. dazz: What can you expect from someone who believes positting some omnipotent goo is a (good) explanation of anything?

    No offense but your attitude is the reason that I believe that interesting discussions are so few and far between here.

    I did not even mention God, I pointed out that Denton is not a traditional theist and his book does not talk about god at all from what I remember. Yet here we are discussing God. It’s like your side is obsessed or something.

    I linked to an interesting article about extreme convergence in different spider species and you take that to be somehow an opening to talk about the explanatory power of omnipotence. Go figure

    I have an interest in science especially cutting edge stuff. Is there any place you know of where a layman could discuss that sort of stuff with folks from different backgrounds?

    Because apparently here it’s all about attacking the atheist understanding of god all the time.

    peace

  20. dazz,

    You have got to be kidding me. That is a footnote and he is talking about what could be accomplished by “playing God” and modifying the lexicon so as to make an outcome more likely.

    Do you think Einstein was talking about god when he said that god does not play dice with the universe?

    peace

  21. fifthmonarchyman,

    Denton DOES mention God in the book, just follow my link above. But my point was about constraints not really about god. Are you really going to get your knickers in a bunch just because I brought up your imaginary friend in the context of an ID book so obviously aimed at creos, especially when you bring it up all the fucking time? whatever dude

    Also I’m pretty sure convergent evolution doesn’t imply that the same species would arise if the tape of life was replayed. But you’re an evolution and common descent denier anyway, why would you agree with Denton’s idea in Nature’s Destiny that nature is set up to guarantee that life can evolve towards some target(s)? Consistency is not your thing, right?

  22. dazz: Also I’m pretty sure convergent evolution doesn’t imply that the same species would arise if the tape of life was replayed.

    Convergent evolution is just one of the many threads that Denton explores to make his argument. I’m really not interested in going over his points one by one with someone who is “not even going to bother checking”

    I really was just slightly interested in discussing an article I read. And maybe talking about it’s relationship to a proposed periodic table of niches.

    https://news.utexas.edu/2017/08/30/new-way-to-map-ecological-niches

    I guess that was just way to much to ask here

    peace

  23. fifthmonarchyman:
    dazz,

    You have got to be kidding me. That is a footnote and he is talking about what could be accomplished by “playing God” and modifying the lexicon so as to make an outcome more likely.

    Do you think Einstein was talking about god when he said that god does not play dice with the universe?

    peace

    LOL, Einstein was all about explaining stuff while Denton refuses to even attempt to explain anything, including the fact that the evolution “director” he has in mind is gawd (apart from that footnote freudian slip). All this is directly related to the points I’ve been making above about theories and constraints, and the principle of plenitude.

  24. dazz: Denton refuses to even attempt to explain anything, including the fact that the evolution “director” he has in mind is gawd (apart from that footnote freudian slip).

    To the best of my knowledge Denton does not mention a “director” or designer either.

    peace

  25. Like I said the as best as I remember it was just about whether something like humans was inevitable.

    That was the gist of it anyway, It’s probably been ten years since I read it so I might be mistaken on the details. There was nothing about CSI or omnipotence or this or that biological structure being complex or unlikely Nothing about Darwin being evil and Nothing about minority voices being silenced in academia

    It was just an interesting science book written for public consumption. Certainly nothing to get upset about. It was a lot like something Jared Diamond or Steven Pinker might write. It would not be universally accepted and I’m sure some of the science was cherry picked and a little sloppy here and there but that is what you expect from books like this.

    It’s a shame that folks like you immediately discount perfectly innocent stuff if it comes from someone you judge to be on the other team.

    In theory a place like this should be working to remove that sort of prejudgement on both sides. Instead of constantly being about how mean god is and how Christians are such poopy heads.

    peace

  26. fifthmonarchyman:
    Like I said the as best as I remember it was just about whether something like humans was inevitable.

    That was the gist of it anyway, It’s probably been ten years since I read it so I might be mistaken on the details. There was nothing about CSI or omnipotence or this or that biological structure being complex or unlikely Nothing about Darwin being evil and Nothing about minority voices being silenced in academia

    It was just an interesting science book written for public consumption. Certainly nothing to get upset about. It was a lot like something Jared Diamond or Steven Pinker might write. It would not be universally accepted and I’m sure some of the science was cherry picked and a little sloppy here and there but that is what you expect from books like this.

    It’s a shame that folks like you immediately discount perfectly innocent stuff if it comes from someone you judge to be on the other team.

    In theory a place like this should be working to remove that sort of prejudgement on both sides.Instead of constantly being about how mean god is and how Christians are such poopy heads.

    peace

    I don’t discount it for coming from the other team. I do it because it’s obviously the same old crap they’ve been selling fools like you for eons: no attempt at explaining anything, negative arguments from personal incredulity and the whole nine yard of fallacious disinformation. Science book? Don’t make me laugh

  27. dazz: I do it because it’s obviously the same old crap they’ve been selling fools like you for eons

    You say that but have yourself admitted that you are “not even going to bother checking”.

    I’m not sure how you could ever come to that conclusion with out checking except by deciding before hand that anything that comes from what you deem to be the other team is “the same old crap”

    peace

  28. fifthmonarchyman: I’m not sure how you could ever come to that conclusion with out checking

    Are you fucking retarded? that’s a rhetorical question in case you’re wondering. This is what I said I wouldn’t bother checking

    dazz: First things first. Does Denton mention in his book the principle of plenitude is not his idea at all? I’m not even going to bother checking

  29. dazz: that’s a rhetorical question in case you’re wondering.

    So, did you read the book before deciding it was “the same old crap”?

    If you didn’t how exactly did you make that determination?

    peace

    P.S. Is cursing really necessary for you to communicate?

  30. fifthmonarchyman: So, did you read the book before deciding it was “the same old crap”?

    I googled it and read some reviews, more than enough. It would serve you well to try looking up things too, and maybe save you the embarrassment of attributing the principle of plenitude to Michael fucking Derpton for example

  31. dazz: I googled it and read some reviews, more than enough.

    lol

    Well, With that kind of research who could argue with your sweeping characterization. 😉

    You should see some of the reviews that folks from my side of the fence write about books written by folks on yours.

    peace

  32. Most flat earthers consider themselves very religious

    Funny, UD missed the religious aspect: Do Millennials doubt that Earth is “round”?

    If you’re listened to or read various flat earthers, they tend to be heavily creationist. And why not? Both crank views involve bizarre conspiracy theories about evil atheists, government, etc., both ignore or trash whatever evidence goes against them, and they rarely bother with observation, beyond naive “look at that, the earth is flat from a plane” or whatever. To be fair, though, I’ve seen more flat earthers actually trying to make a sort of positive–if cherry-picked–case for the flat earth using varying qualities of evidence than I have seen IDists/creationists trying to come up with evidence that life was designed. Unless one counts IDists’ “functional complexity = design,” which is too stupid to credit.

    The poll itself is poor, though, asking if people “always believed the world is round.” First off most recent flat earth models actually do portray a round disk, and secondly, I didn’t believe the earth was a sphere when I was four.

    Glen Davidson

  33. Jerry Coyne showed his true colors yet again, as a censorious, closed-minded bigot. Unsurprisingly, it was with respect to mythicism, which I always thought might end up with me being banned from his blog (as it appears to be now). He’s extremely prejudiced about that matter in particular, as he seems to hate Christianity beyond any reason or justification. Here’s the relevant exchange that was published on his site, whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com:

    glen1davidson
    Posted April 25, 2018 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

    But as we all know, and which Biblical scholars are loath to admit, there is no evidence for the existence of a Jesus person outside of Scripture—and if he existed, there should be.

    Sure there is, the textus receptus of Josephus has him writing:

    Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so (the High Priest) assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Messiah, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

    It doesn’t look like a Christian gloss, which would typically be over the top. But anyway, I’m not one to argue this issue much, and I’m definitely not saying it proves anything, you just can’t say that there’s no evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of Scripture. You can argue it, but it’s certainly there to be argued about.

    Perhaps what was meant was completely contemporary sources, as Josephus’s writing is somewhat after Jesus would have lived. True, but many historical figures are only known by somewhat later sources (Socrates, for instance), and Josephus was in the priestly Jewish milieu for some time prior to writing.

    Not that there’d have to be other sources, that I can see. But they do exist.

    Glen Davidson

    Reply

    whyevolutionistrue
    Posted April 25, 2018 at 2:22 pm | Permalink
    If I were you, I’d read Richard Carrier on Josephus before you state with such certainty that it constitutes “evidence”. It doesn’t.

    Here’s something on the web:

    https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12071

    An excerpt:

    The latest research collectively establishes that both references to Jesus were probably added to the manuscripts of Josephus at the Library of Caesarea after their first custodian, Origen—who had no knowledge of either passage—but by the time of their last custodian, Eusebius—who is the first to find them there. The long passage (the Testimonium Flavianum) was almost certainly added deliberately; the later passage about James probably had the phrase “the one called Christ” (just three words in Greek) added to it accidentally, and was not originally about the Christian James, but someone else. On why we should conclude thus I’ll explain shortly.

    Carrier and others suspect the Jesus references in Joesphus are later additions. If you care to refute what he says in that piece, be my guest.

    Reply

    glen1davidson
    Posted April 25, 2018 at 2:27 pm | Permalink
    He didn’t do anything there but assert what he wants to be so. And you complain about me calling it evidence by appealing to Carrier, as if he were the final word (fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam).

    Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

    . I don’t have to refute a mere appeal to authority.

    Glen Davidson

    Reply

    whyevolutionistrue
    Posted April 25, 2018 at 2:36 pm | Permalink
    Carrier is not an appeal to authority, and you certainly didn’t have time to read it before you made your comment. In general, many scholars think the mentions of Jesus by Josephus are later additions, not just Carrier.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Arguments_challenging_the_authenticity_of_the_three_passages

    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html

    About James, see here: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/2946

    It’s telling that you say you’re not the one to argue this issue, and yet you maintain that Josephus is “evidence” in seeming ignorance of the huge dispute about that, and the fact that scholars are coming to a consensus that it’s a later interpolation that proves nothing about the existence of a Jesus.

    Your comment is rude in response to one that is not. And your ignorance about Josephus is combined with that rudeness, which I don’t like on this site.

    _______________________________________________________________
    End of the relevant published comments.

    So he was a rude jerk who tried to fob me off with the execrable Carrier, accompanied by some lies about how the evidence that is discussed supposedly isn’t evidence at all. So I responded with this, that the closed-minded bigot refused to publish:

    glen1davidson
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Posted April 25, 2018 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

    Carrier is not an appeal to authority, and you certainly didn’t have time to read it before you made your comment.

    Yes he is, because you just linked to one single partisan “scholar” who’s [sic] Bayesian nonsense is purely laughable. I am no expert on these matters, but neither are you, and to link to him as if he’s the final say is far from a reasonable response to anything I’ve written.

    No, I didn’t have time to read it, but then I’ve already read at least some of it, and responses to it.

    In general, many scholars think the mentions of Jesus by Josephus are later additions, not just Carrier.

    Didn’t I say you could argue it? But you didn’t argue it, you just linked to a man whose conduct has been execrable in many areas, notably in attacking any opponents of PZ Myers, FTB (these two prior to his falling out, of course), and “social justice” in general. He sets himself up as the final authority on this matter, while mostly his writings fall outside of peer review.

    It’s telling that you say you’re not the one to argue this issue, and yet you maintain that Josephus is “evidence” in seeming ignorance of the huge dispute about that, and the fact that scholars are coming to a consensus that it’s a later interpolation that proves nothing about the existence of a Jesus.

    Of course it’s evidence, which is why it’s being argued.

    I signaled awareness of dispute over the matter by writing:

    But anyway, I’m not one to argue this issue much, and I’m definitely not saying it proves anything, you just can’t say that there’s no evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of Scripture. You can argue it, but it’s certainly there to be argued about.

    And who says that scholars are coming to such a consensus, except for the experts that happen to say what you say? Many say it’s quite the contrary,.

    Your comment is rude in response to one that is not. And your ignorance about Josephus is combined with that rudeness, which I don’t like on this site.

    Really? You just asserted that the evidence that scholars discuss was not evidence, based solely on the link to Carrier. Sorry, that’s rude. I had written a nuanced response, allowing that it wasn’t “proof” and could be argued, and you simply appealed to your single authority to deny the evidence, rather than argue it.

    And what ignorance of Josephus am I guilty of that you are not? I am familiar with disputes over Josephus, hence I made no more claim than that it was evidence for Jesus’ existence. You’re the one who would not discuss the matter, rather referring me to your favorite partisan with no acknowledgement of the baggage that Carrier bears.

    Glen Davidson

    _______________________________________________________________

    He’s a dishonest, despicable, closed-minded bigot. He’s a rude ignoramus who just asserts and links to a fool like Carrier, and he accuses me of rudeness and ignorance. He’s about as open and honest on his cherished beliefs–especially mythicism–as Ken Ham is on his.

    Glen Davidson

Leave a Reply