Physics and Ultimate Reality

[indigobusiness]

PHYSICS AND ULTIMATE REALITY

- A transcript

Guest:
Paul Davies - Professor of Natural Philosophy at the University of Adelaide, and author of over twenty books including The Mind of God and God and the New Physics.
Hosts: Kevin Solway & David Quinn


Paul Davies had only recently been awarded the Templeton Prize for "progress in religion" when he agreed to appear on the program, and we saw it as a good opportunity to question him on what exactly this progress consisted of. Has he brought mankind closer to the Ultimate Wisdom? Does he himself know what God is? Does he truly believe that physics can tell us something about reality?
---

snip

Kevin: Well, if the Universe itself - and I mean everything, the Infinite - is what we give the name of God, well then, of course we can't rightly say that God created the Universe, because the Universe itself is actually God.


Paul: That's just playing with words. I think to just say, "God is the Universe", might make some people feel they've just said something profound, but to me it just seems to be relabelling the word "universe".


David: Can I come in here? This is David Quinn. I'm interested in this word "God". To me this word "God", if it's going to mean anything at all, it must be an ultimate explanation of everything. This has to be the one basic characteristic of the word "God" - that it is ultimate, absolute.


Paul: Yes, I wouldn't disagree with that.


David: Right, well, I'm wondering about the role of science in saying anything at all about the Absolute, or the Ultimate. You were referring before to the laws of science and how this Universe seems to be special, and you were asking, "Why is this?". I was just wondering how can science, or physics, ever come to tell us anything at all about what is absolute?


Paul: It's important to realize that science deals with the facts of the world, whereas religion and philosophy deal with the interpretation of those facts. You can have the same set of facts and different people can interpret them differently. So, for example, in connection with the "specialness" of the laws of physics which I've been talking about, some of my colleagues can agree on the amount of specialness, but shrug their shoulders and say, "So what? It doesn't mean anything terribly significant to me. They could have been much more special than that." So it's a little bit like arguing whether the bottle of water is half full or half empty. Other people would take that same set of facts and say, "That's really amazing! It looks contrived, as though some sort of selection has been made." And if we're just going to restrict ourselves to science . . . of course, science can only deal with the law- like behaviour of the actual world - the facts of the world - and it can't tell us, it can't compel us, to adopt any particular interpretation. But it can, I think, provide circumstantial evidence for a certain interpretation that we should be surprised, amazed, pleased, by the specialness of these laws, by the apparently contrived nature of the world, by the peculiarity that the laws are such that they can give rise to thinking, reflecting beings like ourselves. All of these things, in my view, are very odd and very special. They're highly suggestive that the laws which we've got aren't any old rag-bag of laws, but a set that would have to be, if you had a shopping list of laws, very carefully selected - possibly in order that there might be thinking beings like ourselves, for example.


David: Well, it would appear, maybe to you, that this is the case. I mean, what I'm trying to get at is that every scientific fact, or theorizing about a fact, is inherently uncertain.


Paul: Of course.


David: So even the very idea of the specialness of this Universe . . . it's an appearance to us. It actually may not be the case.


Paul: Well, of course. All I can tell you about is the world as we understand it to the best of our ability today - and we can draw whatever conclusions we can from that. But what else can a scientist ever do?


David: Well, this is what I'm trying to get at. If we want knowledge of what is ultimately real . . . I mean, I've been following your career a little bit, and read through The Mind of God, for example, and you say that the laws of physics aren't enough to give us this ultimate explanation of everything.


Paul: Well, you see, the laws of physics, by definition, can't explain why those particular laws.


David: So science is limited in this manner.


Paul: Of course, inevitably, science by its very nature cannot provide these ultimate explanations.


David: So this is where philosophic thought comes into play.


Paul: Well, I don't think you can avoid it. You see, whether you want to adopt a scientific approach, a religious approach, or an atheistic approach, or whatever, if you want to explain the world in its entirety - which is, of course, a big project - you have to start somewhere. You have to take something as given. You've got to take a ground, a base, a set of assumptions. This could be a set of laws of nature, about which you could just shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, that just happens to be the set", and you could start at that. Alternatively, it may be some deep philosophical principle. Or it may be the existence of a God, who can in some sense select. It could be something else we haven't thought of. But you have to start somewhere. And whether you're an atheist, a theist, a deist, or a scientist, the bottom level which you start out with you have to accept as an act of faith. I often say that the whole of science is based on an gigantic act of faith - which is that we live in a universe that is not only ordered, but ordered in an intelligible way. That's a huge act of faith, even if you're an atheist.

snip

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/j8.html

[Spinzonner]

1. Orderliness is a macro-illusion

generated by a convergence of proabilities.

Fundamentally it's random and unpredictable.

You people are so obsessed with purpose and meaning. Sheesh.

[indigobusiness]

2. You people...

are so obsessed with passing judgment on what others are obsessed

with, and not concerned enough with purpose and meaning. Sheesh.

[Spinzonner]

3. How classical

Get with the Quantum

[indigobusiness]

6. Get a sense of humor...

and learn to spell.

[aneerkoinos]

52. Order

Random and chaotis can be said to be orders too, just bit different from more deterministic orders, and often the difference is just point of view. There are scales to the level of indetermincacy and unpredictability. And there's much more to be said about various orders.

Are you, by the way, excluding yourself from those obsessed with purpose and meaning? Then why the attempt share yours? ;)

[trotsky]

4. The last refuge of the theist.

"Well, since everyone has to start *somewhere*, I'm justified assuming there is a god."

So because the universe is orderly, that points so a creator?

If the universe *wasn't* orderly (behaved in a predictable way) then would it have even been possible for life to arise? Doesn't the fact we're here to observe the orderliness of the universe mean he's kind of begging the question?

:eyes:

Has there really been no progress in theological thought the last hundred years? Is the last, best weapon you have really the Argument from Design?

[lazarus]

5. That's all they've ever had

coupled with the Argument from Personal Credulity. :D

Oh, they'll through in the Ontological argument from time to time, but it always goes back to Design in the end.

[indigobusiness]

7. It's amazing how your ilk arrives at your conclusions.

In your adamant rush to point out the impossible, sometimes it seems you won't even consider what is.

Ontlogy, like God, is just a word.

Here is an interesting perspective on reality, the last chapter especially.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x5249

Nobody is proselytizing here.

[lazarus]

15. My "ilk"?

Whatever.

Ontology is, indeed, a word. Very good, you've spotted my clever plan to use words in an online forum. Huzzah!

Your "interesting perspective on reality" wasn't. Well, it was a perspective on reality, but it wasn't interesting. It was rather lame, and betrayed a misunderstanding of the laws of physics. If someone doesn't even understand the laws of physics, I question their ability to offer an "interesting perspective on reality" that has any real meaning.

[indigobusiness]

8. THE SOCIETY OF THE SANE

spin

Physicists have great humility, as the sane understand the word. They accept, not that there is infinitely more to be discovered, but that they can never discover more.

This acceptance is based on their belief in something called the Uncertainty Principle. The Uncertainty Principle does not, of course, express the uncertainty that must always prevail about what the next theory in physics will be like. It describes a limitation in the knowledge of the human race which, it is confidently asserted, can never be surmounted. Young physicists find it difficult to see why it never could be, and it is an important stage in their intellectual maturation when they can.

The Uncertainty Principle arises from the fact that commonsense concepts do not apply very well to subatomic particles. You can say they are something like waves, or something like particles, but you cannot use both of your ill-fitting notions at once. (Still less may you try to have an idea of a single extraordinary entity that is exactly like a subatomic particle.

Whether or not you succeeded, this would be likely to give you feelings about inconceivability, and it is very important to avoid such feelings in physics.) So physicists have evolved a complicated and blurry way of using the concepts the human race already has. This is known as the Quantum Theory. The fact that it is blurry is expressed in the Uncertainty Principle, which states that so long as you use these concepts in this way the result will be blurry.

The human race does not know what other concepts it could use, and certainly has no intention of thinking about it. It therefore elevates the statement about the blurriness of reality to the status of a metaphysical absolute.

(Yes, I know the human race doesn't usually like metaphysical absolutes, but this one is different.)

There is a kind of earnest astonishment made popular by linguistic philosophers. ('This man says he thinks without words. What can we possibly infer about the past life of a man who makes such a statement?') This has been taken over by the theoretical physicists for use on anyone who suggests that there might be a theory completely different from Quantum Theory, even perhaps using different concepts.

'What precisely is the concept we are asked to entertain...? What picture is being painted for us...? What exactly will microphysics be like...? What is the physicist being asked to do...?'<4> asks Norwood Russell Hanson, boggling hard.

So we all accept that reality is blurry and that the laws of nature are statistical. (Not -- 'our descriptions of nature are statistical', you notice.) This brings us to statistics. Emotionally, if not indeed intellectually, statistics is no longer felt to provide description, but explanation. It is not difficult to see why it should be so appealing. It is, as you might say, democratic (in every sense). It depends on counting, which is fair and equitable (why should one electron be singled out for special attention?) -- and then again, counting is a thing nearly everyone can do.

There used to be a philosophical error known as 'reification', which was what happened when people forgot that abstract nouns were not things, and imagined Truth sitting in state in a scarlet robe, for example. This is a very, very unfashionable kind of mistake to make today (because sometimes when people did it, it was a sign that they were taking the Outside too seriously).

So no one has noticed the reification of statistical concepts that goes on, and physicists talk of a thing being 'caused by chance' as if 'chance' sat there pushing the right proportion of electrons to the left. If an electron chooses to turn left, this is either caused by something, which may or may not be known to the human race at present, or it is caused by nothing, which is shockingly inconceivable. In neither case is it caused by a cosy little homebody figure called 'Chance'.

To do theoretical physics properly requires a very special kind of thinking.

Suppose that you find that all particles of a certain kind, when placed in a given situation, behave in one of two ways. Half of them do one thing and half do the other. First, you do not allow yourself to think that the particles might not be identical, or that there might be some unknown influence, which causes half of them to do one thing, and half to do the other. You must say 'I can make a statistical prediction. The laws of nature are statistical' with no sense of being puzzled or astonished, and without falling into a state of radical scepticism about the concept of 'cause'.

To perform this kind of mental manoeuvre to perfection requires years of training and great intellectual maturity. (Einstein always found it rather difficult. He expressed his inability in the curious, subjective statement: God does not play dice.)

The next manoeuvre to be described is comparatively easy. It is a technique for ironing infinity out of the universe. The technique depends on the fact that people cannot visualize a fourth dimension. So you say to them: 'The universe is infinite in a sense -- you can go wherever you like and never come to an edge. But it is also finite in a sense -- if you go on long enough you will come back to the same point.' People feel that this is a difficult kind of thing which they should pretend to understand. It also makes them feel happy, because it is a way of saying 'The universe is an Inside without an Outside.'

If this description of the universe is expressed with fewer dimensions it becomes clear what is really being said. The surface of a sphere is unbounded in that you can travel all over it without coming to an edge; it is also finite in that it has a certain definite area. But -- (since we can visualize things in three dimensions, as we cannot in four) -- it is clear that the sphere does have an Outside.

Or consider this exposition of a method for muddling yourself about infinity:


To construct a hypothetical three-dimensional world which is finite and unbounded, we will assume that our bug lives with a whole family of bugs in a space which has no physical boundaries or barriers. If we further assume that the bugs are very massive, then none of the bugs will be able to leave the group because the gravitational attraction of the group as a whole on each bug will prevent it. Furthermore, since the gravitational attraction is so strong, light rays will not be able to leave the mass of bugs either.

Thus, even if a bug looks off in the direction of space beyond the group, his line of sight will curve back towards the group, always producing 'bugs in his eyes', and he will never be able to see beyond the group.

'Straight ahead' for each bug always will mean towards the centre of the group. The bugs will not be conscious of any physical barrier, though; as far as they know, they will live in a world which is unbounded. Their world is finite, since the size of the group as a whole is finite and the group constitutes their world.<5>

Obviously the emotional force of this passage depends on the ease with which the sane mind can accept that 'they cannot see beyond the group' is a statement precisely equivalent to 'there is nothing beyond the group'.

Modern scientists have learnt their function; to make reality sound so dull that no one will be tempted to think about it. Stephen Toulmin gently chides Jeans and Eddington for popularizing science in a disturbing, thought-provoking way.

... Jeans, for instance, relied on finding a happy analogy which would by itself bring home to his readers the chief features of the General Theory of Relativity. And how did he invite them to think of the Universe? As the three-dimensional surface of a four-dimensional balloon. The poor layman, who has been brought up to use the word 'surface' for two-dimensional things alone, now found himself instructed to visualise what for him was a self-contradiction, so it was no wonder if he agreed to Jeans' calling the Universe a mysterious one.<6>

Whatever else the universe may be, every sane person knows it isn't that.

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/humevas.html#open

[trotsky]

9. I hope that isn't copyrighted.

Anyway, I didn't need to read any further than the part in which the author demonstrates a total ignorance of the Uncertainty Principle.

So if this long-winded passage was supposed to prove a point, not knowing the facts kind of defeats the whole thing.

[indigobusiness]

10. Don't let her humor throw you.

There is much here you might find interesting, but suit yourself.

[trotsky]

11. I'm sorry, but if someone doesn't even have basic facts right...

it's not humor - it's hard to take them seriously. She goes on to formulate her "point" partially based on that incorrect fact. And I'm supposed to find it interesting? :eyes:

[indigobusiness]

14. There are interesting considerations beyond her opinion...

but like I said, suit yourself.

[aneerkoinos]

27. Uncertainty principle

Can you show please how this is necessarily a case of "total ingorance", and not perhaps just framing it differently, but still consistently?

In other words, can you show the inconsistency between the authors presentation of the notion and your own, I'm sure impeccable, understanding of Uncertainty Principle and it's implications?

[trotsky]

28. Sure thing.

The Uncertainty Principle is not really about the wave-particle duality of matter as the author is implying. Certainly wave-particle duality is key to understanding quantum mechanics, but that's beside the point.

The Uncertainty Principle only says that we can never know a particle's exact position AND momentum at the same time. It comes out of the fact that at a quantum level, you cannot make a measurement of something without disturbing it. It's not some mysterious netherworld of physics where, oh dear, those arrogant scientists admit that there are things they'll never know so we must allow for god to exist. It's actually one of the aspects of quantum mechanics that DOES follow common sense. I can't know where something is without essentially bouncing something off of it. Like a photon. Well, when I do that, the photon will impart energy. In the case of a pencil sitting on a desk, even trillions of photons won't budge it. So the photons bounce off of it and into my eyes, and I can see the pencil and know where it is. But when you talk about the subatomic realm, the amount of energy in a photon becomes significant, thus the Uncertainty Principle.

I never claimed my understanding of it is impeccable - that's you being rude and insulting to me. But I do understand it more than that author, which was my point. Perhaps you could apologize now that I've shown you why the author was wrong?

[indigobusiness]

30. I don't doubt your considerable grasp

of these concepts, but I'm still fuzzy on the wave nature and quantum entanglement in all of this, as you seem preoccupied with the particle nature.

The argument seems to break down when terms like 'God' are thrown in: as though everyone is operating with firm, and identical, definitions.
-----
Most of my confusion is discussed in this conversation:

snip

All that is require is finding a way to manipulate the wave function of the particles involved. We do this all the time to beams of particles like photon and electrons. Take the double slit experiment for example. By closing and opening a single slit we can determine whether particle like a photon, proton,neutron or electron behave like wave or steams of particles.


Not only can we effect the path the particle take but actually where it impact on the target, without applying a physical force to the particle itself. Basicly we are shaping the possiblitily wave in a manner that defies common logic and how this is done is one of the mystery of modern physic.


What causes the Quantum wave form to collaspe, determining when or where a particle appears. We know when we attempt to measure a particle it happen, but the mechanism of how it happen is unknown. If we knew how the Wave function is force to collaspe then we may be able to effect the outcome.

snip

http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=56998

[trotsky]

33. Confusion over the double-slit experiment is nothing new.

But once you start applying some thought to it, it too begins to make sense. The double-slit is all about interference patterns - waves that have crests and troughs can cancel each other out when crest meets trough, and amplify each other when crest meets crest (or trough meets trough). When you do the mathematics of the angles from the double-slits to the pattern, you will see mathematical relationships between the wavelength of the particle and the pattern of light and dark spots on the wall.

By opening or closing one of the slits, we aren't really "determining" how something behaves as either a wave or a particle - we're just changing how we are measuring, or observing, the object.

Regarding the topic of that thread - teleportation - there is a really good short article about it showing how, at least at the quantum level, teleportation is quite feasible. It includes a little overview of entanglement.

http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/

[indigobusiness]

34. Aren't you imposing Newtonian principles

onto Quantum concepts?

[trotsky]

35. How so?

eom

[indigobusiness]

36. Isn't the wave aspect merely wave-like?

It has the properties of a wave, as seen in Newtonian physics, and used in Quantum analysis as an appropriate metaphor for something exixting within an entirely different rule book.

It just seems that rather than illuminating the wave/particle mystery, you are seeking to cage it.

[trotsky]

62. Cage it?

I'm really not sure what you mean by that. Waves are waves - and wave equations are wave equations. Even at the quantum level, waves have frequency and wavelength characteristics. If you want to hide your god in the uncertainty principle or in the mysterious wave-particle duality of matter, go right ahead - doesn't bother me in the slightest. Doesn't have any meaning, either, but that doesn't seem to affect those who need to have a god in there somewhere.

[indigobusiness]

65. Quantum waves are definitely not Newtonian waves

except metaphorically. They only resemble Newtonian waves. When Quantum waves collapse they are not remotely similar to collapsing Newtonian waves.

Tsunami.

[trotsky]

132. And the wave aspect of photons (and matter)

is what causes the interference pattern, which is Newtonian in its description. I never said anything about the collapsing of waves, only the results of the double-slit experiment.

[aneerkoinos]

134. Or rather

Wave aspect is our metaphor for the interference pattern that we postulate after observing the result of the "collapse" of that postulated interference pattern into observables, not the cause of it - unless you think that our metaphorizing minds caused the collapse, which also would be OK to me and even more so to the Copenhagians.

However, the interference pattern is definitely not Newtonian in its mathematical description(s). In plain English you are naturally free to describe it in any way you want, I'm sure she won't mind (much).

[indigobusiness]

136. You said: " Waves are waves - and wave equations are wave equations.""

If waves are waves, where is the wave/particle duality of Newtonian waves?

You destroyed your credibility, awhile back, while backpedalling and saying that you knew better than what you asserted, but you just used an old textbook in your lazy argument...and knew you were wrong all along, when it was pointed out.

Are you operating in your full capacity when you say waves are waves?
Do you even have the capacity for operating in good faith, with the entire credit of your knowledge? Or do you always keep something in reserve?

Bah!
---

[trotsky]

137. Oh, please.

I wanted to keep it simple for a political message board, and you and your thread buddy decided to divert the focus of my post into a dissection of its academic shortcomings. Bah, indeed.

[indigobusiness]

138. Keeping it simple? Quantum theory demands precision

not bs and distortion of concepts to somehow accommodate a message board. That is a truly lame cop-out.

The predominant academic shortcomings displayed here are yours. When you attack something, you'd best be able to back up your words. It is abundantly clear you know nothing of what you speak.

[trotsky]

139. Well at least I know what it's like to be in your shoes, huh?

Yes, I was trying to keep it simple, but if it makes you feel better go ahead and enjoy your "moment." :eyes:

[indigobusiness]

141. You are like a schoolgirl, sticking out her tongue.

What a big baby. One who sees fit to sacrifice accuracy for ostensible simplicity. I've got news for you, accuracy would have been simpler than your confounded inaccuracy.

I Know You Are But What Am I theory is much more your speed than Quantum theory.

[aneerkoinos]

140. Academic shortcumming

There was no other focus in your post about the article, except that it had an academic shortcoming which was grounds enough to debunk the whole article as not worth reading. So who brought up the issue of academic shortcomings and "diverted the focus", we the thread buddies?

After your presumptuousness exploded on your face your main contribution has been: "Oh they're so mean to me!" Do you think that is somehow a better focus?

Short while ago, when my 5-year son failed at something and got frustrated, he used to blame his failing on others. Now he acts more like adult, vents his frustration loudly but takes it on others only when they offer to help, just like the father... :)

[aneerkoinos]

40. Correct me if I'm wrong

but doesn't "changing how we are measuring, or observing, the object" mean "determining"?

[trotsky]

61. Not necessarily.

We can do experiments that detect the wave-like nature of a photon, and we can do experiments that detect the particle-like nature of it. But we aren't *determining* (i.e., purposely changing) what the photon essentially *is*.

[aneerkoinos]

64. Apples and oranges?

My understanding is that metaphysical questions like "what (something) essentially *is*" are of different order, not anwerable by the determining kind of knowledge, which in the quantum domain tends to determine photons and such as events rather than essences.

[aneerkoinos]

39. Position and momentum

Yes, I knew that exact position and momentum cannot be measured at the same time, which is the most usual example of UP. Only either is measurable exactly, or both fuzzily. I' also aware that UP is not most usually mentioned together with wave-particle dualism, but to my understanding they are not without fundamental connection.

What I'm less clear about, is are we talking about epistemology, just technical measurement problem caused by "disturbing" - as could be understood from your post - or some fundamental character of being, ontological uncertainty, a degree of indeterminacy at the deepest level of being.

So let's consult Wikipedia:
"The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is sometimes erroneously explained by claiming that the measurement of position necessarily disturbs a particle's momentum. Heisenberg himself may have offered explanations which suggest this view, at least initially. That the role of disturbance is not essential can be seen as follows: Consider an ensemble of (non-interacting) particles all prepared in the same state; for each particle in the ensemble we measure the momentum or the position (but not both). From the measurement results, we will obtain probability distributions of values for both these quantities and the uncertainty relations still hold for the dispersions dp, dq of the values."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

So, if we are to believe Wikepedia, you are showing "erroneous" ignorance about the UP, and, by if we were to follow principle you applied to the earlier post and apply it to your posts... ;)

Thus, in the light of previous I'm still far from accepting your claim that you have better understanding of UP than the author, I'm rather inclined to think it's vice versa, so I don't think you have yet earned the apology you expect.

[trotsky]

60. Okey dokey.

I got my explanation out of my old college physics textbook, and it was intended to be simplistic - it was from an introductory QM class. I did not know that you were waiting to trip me up on the more advanced notions of it because I didn't go into them. Needless to say, even with the more detailed and accurate definition, the author of the original item was using it incorrectly, and my point stands.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aneerkoinos]

67. Oh, edited

But still wrong, the author was not using it incorrectly:

From the same link:
"The Heisenberg uncertainty relations are a theoretical bound over all measurements. In fact, they hold for so-called ideal measurements, sometimes called von Neumann measurements. They hold a-fortiori for non-ideal or Landau measurements.

Correspondingly, any one particle (in the general sense, e. g. carrying discrete electric charge) cannot be described simultaneously as a "classic point particle" and as a wave. (The fact itself that either one of these descriptions can be appropriate at least in separate cases is called wave-particle duality; a change of appropriate descriptions according to measured values is known as wavefunction collapse.) The uncertainty principle (as initially considered by Heisenberg) is concerned with cases in which neither of these two descriptions is fully and exclusively appropriate, such as a particle in a box with a particular energy value; i. e. systems which are characterized neither by one unique "position" (one particular value of distance form a potential wall) nor by one unique value of momentum (incl. its direction)."

To your feelings of having been insulted and suspicion of laid a trap where you tripped, I can only say: If you want to save your face, don't put in the way of a flying cake.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

131. Well then quit throwing cake.

I don't know why you've felt the need to take such a personal and harsh tone in this, but the original author is still wrong.

Author: The Uncertainty Principle arises from the fact that commonsense concepts do not apply very well to subatomic particles. You can say they are something like waves, or something like particles, but you cannot use both of your ill-fitting notions at once.

It is accurate to say that common sense concepts don't apply well to the subatomic realm. And I never disputed that, in fact I've stated it myself on numerous occasions. It is not, however, appropriate or accurate to say that the U.P. "arises" from this fact. It is simply a fact on its own of the quantum domain. The author interprets the U.P. far beyond what it states, and that is why she is wrong.

[aneerkoinos]

133. Then Quit Baking Cakes

and putting them in motion by making presumptuous and arrogant comments. Unless learning experiences are what you seek, personally I've found the cakes in my face most educating and awarding.

As for me and my motivations, I don't know why, but I do have a nasty personality and I don't accept the responsibility for your feelings.

As for the rest, I think you are just nagging, but by all means, be as right as you want to be.

[indigobusiness]

135. She is only wrong

in not conforming to your parsimonious quibbling.

[Stunster]

12. Positing an infinity of unobservable universes

in order to avoid positing one unobservable, is the last, highly ironic, refuge of the atheist.

Theistic philosophy is thriving btw, and there are loads of arguments for theism.
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth01.html

I once attended a lecture at Oxford, in which Alvin Plantinga gave 26 arguments for theism. Not that a person needs an argument for every belief they have anyway to qualify as rational.
http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/files/Theisticarguments.html

[lazarus]

13. LOL

"Positing an infinity of unobservable universes in order to avoid positing one unobservable, is the last, highly ironic, refuge of the atheist."



So what is positing one unobservable Creator, then?

[indigobusiness]

16. Buddhism doesn't posit a Creator, neither does Spinoza...

but the cosmologies are similar in many ways, and the issues remain the same.

[lazarus]

17. and they don't answer my question

But that's as expected.

[indigobusiness]

18. Perhaps you're asking the wrong question?

Maybe the answer to your question is a moot point?

[lazarus]

19. Maybe there is no answer?

Or at least, not one you're willing to give?

[indigobusiness]

20. Not at all.

That's the answer I had in mind.

[H2O Man]

21. My 10 year old daughter became frustrated

while doing her homework tonight. After trying to figure out an answer without success, she looked over at me and snarled, "Maybe there is no answer!"

Of course I ignored her attempt to manipulate me into helping her. But the answer to her question was not mine to give her.

She's still at the table as I type this.

[indigobusiness]

22. Good

nonanswer.

[Stunster]

23. Ever heard of Ockham's Razor? (n/t)

[lazarus]

24. Yup

Do you actually understand it?

Which is the "needless multiplication of entities":

A universe without a creator?

or

A universe with a creator?

Multiple universes aren't necessary for this universe's existence according to science.

[Stunster]

25. So...

that's why the Multiverse was proposed by top scientists like Martin Rees, Andrei Linde, etc?

[lazarus]

37. No

they proposed it for other, very good reasons.

Note that they proposed it. Didn't run around saying it was absolute truth, did they?

We know the universe exists. That's it.

You still haven't answered my question, as usual. Go back, read my post again, and see if you can come up with an answer that actually applies to the question.

[Stunster]

43. "beyond necessity"

Have you read Rees' book JUST SIX NUMBERS? It's friggin obvious that he proposes the Multiverse to explain the fine-tuning of the physics governing the universe in order to avoid a theistic or a deistic inference.

Arguing your way, we could say that there is no such thing as curved space, there are just apples falling off trees. And there is no such thing as the electromagnetic field, there's just electrical and magnetic phenomena.

Don't know if I posted this before, but it explains the point about positing invisible entities as the conclusion of abductive inferences:

I'm having a quick re-read of the first chapter of THE MATTER MYTH,
by Davies and Gribbin (entitled 'The Death of Materialism'). I was
struck by this passage:

"After all, the electromagnetic field is also an abstract entity that
we cannot directly observe. One can point again to the fact that the
relativistic field theory is simpler than the alternative. But whereas
the issue seems clear-cut in the case of the Earth going around the
Sun, the question of whether the ether, or the electromagnetic field,
or neither, is 'really there' seems altogether more subtle."

It occurred to me that scientists posit a completely invisible entity
(the EM field) to explain what we observe. The positing of the EM
field is the result of an abductive inference to an invisible,
intangible, unfalsifiable theoretical entity as that which best
explains various phenomena we do observe. In a sense, it predicts
those phenomena, though the phenomena were observed long before the
theory of an EM field was posited. But the theory essentially tells us
that *given the EM field, these phenomena are to be expected*.

It strikes me that theism is also an explanatory theory, positing an
intrinsically invisible, intangible theoretical reality, and theistic
theory predicts---i.e. tells us to expect---certain phenomena, though
of course the phenomena were observed long before theistic theory was
proposed. What phenomena are those?

--That the physical world exhibits profound mathematical order and
intelligibility.

--That the world will contain conscious rational minds endowed with a
causally efficacious and significantly autonomous will

--That the world will exhibit the phenomenology of moral experience

--That the world will contain religious experience

--That the world will exhibit other (non-moral, non-religious) forms
of value (such as aesthetic value, pleasure, joy, fulfilment, etc).

Now one can try to assess other theories, competing with theism (as
one can propose alternative theories to the EM field theory to explain
EM phenomena), which claim to account for the aforementioned
phenomena. But, as the New Mysterians and other have noted, the
central phenomenon of consciousness (without which the rest of the
phenomena either don't arise or cannot be known about) has proven
intractable to materialist explanation. So it appears that theism is
at least a decent candidate for a basic explanatory theory of actually
a wide range of observable or intelligible phenomena. That the
physical world should be so finely ordered by intelligible
mathematical laws and relations, (the efficacy of math for
understanding the physical world famously struck one noted scientist
as 'unreasonable', because we were able to work certain things out in
our minds which were only later confirmed by empirical investigation
to be true of the physical world--suggesting that a mind had already
designed the physical world or that it was the product of a rational
mind); and then that it should produce from this physical order life,
consciousness, and all the phenomena associated with reason and value,
invites the construction of a theory, or the positing of a theoretical
reality to account for it all, in a way analogous to how electric and
magnetic phenomena invite the construction, on the basis of abductive
inference, of an overarching theory which posits a theoretical entity
---the EM field---to account for EM phenomena.

Another intrinsically invisible, intangible, theoretical entity
famously posited by science is curved space, to account for
gravitational phenomena, as proposed by Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity. Would it be a good answer to Einstein to say of curved
space that it doesn't explain anything? That we can make do with
the observed fact that bodies fall to the center of massive objects,
without having to postulate unobservable purely theoretical entities
that cause the bodies to fall in that way, especially
counter-intuitive ones like curved space?

So, I'm going to make a prediction based on my theistic hypothesis,
which I don't think can be explained on a materialist hypothesis: that
if you were to be promised an abundance of material wealth, pleasure,
plastic surgery to make you attractive, and brain surgery to make you
hyper-intelligent, and an abundance of medicine to ensure that you'd
have a long, healthy life---all provided for free on condition that
you burnt alive a few dozen small children--- you will feel a strong
sense of moral obligation not to burn those kids.

According to materialists like Dawkins, your genes are selfish, right,
and selfish genes all there really is to you, right? So, if that's
so, let's test it, and here's a test for what you will experience
under certain conditions.

Of course, what I expect to happen is that Dawkins & Co. will qualify
and refine their selfish gene theory so that it will accord with your
moral revulsion. Naturally, I find that supremely ironic. Their
theory has to be so jiggered about with that it can never be
falsified---the very thing that they accuse theists of doing.

But then, maybe science and theology aren't so different after all.

[indigobusiness]

69. "But then, maybe science and theology aren't so different after all."

Chandhapudra: Look closely at its virtues. Buddhist cosmology bears a strong resemblance to the cosmology of modern physics. There are already many people saying that quantum physicists and Buddhists are pointing to the same reality - marvellous stuff! Furthermore, Buddhist philosophy articulates a Universe which is continually changing and evolving: this is an outlook which happens to be very fashionable at the moment, and it also fits in well with the current scientific theories of evolution. Now, just to place all this in some sort of context, I have been assured by some of our leading scientists that most of modern physical and biological theory is firmly entrenched and that it is virtually inconceivable that theories like quantum mechanics and Big Bang cosmology, for example, will be overturned in the near future.

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. Do you regard Buddhism as a fake religion, designed to control minds?

Because that's the second time you've quoted from that satirical site.

[indigobusiness]

71. Are you serious?

Satirical?

Shouldn't you be out strangling voles?

Truth is where you find it, even in satirical attacks of it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. Well, yes, satirical

The quote just before and after this in the dialogue:

Chandhapudra: Well, naturally, I think people should turn to Buddhism. You see, I'm not advocating that Christians give up religion. In fact, I don't want anyone to give up religion at all. I simply urge them to consider Buddhism as a viable alternative. It is a religion which fulfills every function of Christianity, both societal and psychological, while at the same time being a great deal more believable for the modern mind. I guarantee you that the Buddhist teaching is a magnificent half-lie, one that will take four or five centuries at the very least to expose.
...
Chandhapudra: It doesn't matter. Buddhism is flexible enough to adapt. The point is we have no need of a God in order to carry out our responsibilities to humanity. Buddhism possesses far more brilliant means of producing mindlessness - ones which do not require insulting people by asking them to believe in a super-fantastic being in the sky. Take the practice of meditation, for example. We simply tell people that the quickest way to Nirvanic bliss is to empty the mind of all thoughts and, lo and behold, off they go with a burning zeal to become as thoughtless as possible! I tell you, the simplicity of it is breathtaking!

Father Gerry: Well, I don't know. I don't want to denigrate your religion, of course, but I hardly think that meditation is sufficient on its own to destroy consciousness.

Chandhapudra: Well, it's a pretty powerful technique! There are millions who swear by it. And of course we do use other measures as well. Like any other self-respecting religion, we encourage people to immerse themselves in complex and meaningless ritual, and to chant and pray and study volumes of intricate scripture, and to lose themselves in devotional music and so on. So I wouldn't worry if I were you. We do impress upon people the need to practise all the usual, time-honoured techniques of mind destruction.

http://www.theabsolute.net/seat/seat1.html

[indigobusiness]

73. Well then...

I'm so ashamed.

[aneerkoinos]

74. Mind-control

Which religion or philosophy does not have designs for mind-control?

[indigobusiness]

75. Mine

for one

[aneerkoinos]

76. Really?

Which religion or philosophy is that?

You don't practice your thinking skills? You don't meditate? You don't pray? I thought that prayer-wheel wheeling in each of your posts to be a form of mind-control, in other words, some intention regarding something mental?

[indigobusiness]

77. Really.

I eclectically take all the naughty bits from everything I can find... everything from Lao Tzu to the grown up baby Jesus...mix well with everything I've learned and forgotten...heat...sleep on it (incorporating wild sexual fantasies)...stir..top with a mocha meringue swirl...consume half to break my fast...ponder the remainder as it sits an curdles...disregard all rational philosophical conclusions...operate entirely on lateral thinking and instinct.

That is my religion and philosophy. You, and everyone, are welcome to join my Church...after a generous cash contribution.

[aneerkoinos]

79. That migh do it

But allow me to play the doubting Thomas. Hard as it is for me, nearly impossible, to know lateral thinking and instinct as only consepts, by exercising mind-control I try to avoid that trap, or to be more exact my nasty instinct to throw you into that trap.

Instead, in all sincerety, I'll ask you this. Is there (or was there) any intentionality and/or preferentiality present at your mind, self-born or derived and internalized from the naughty bits you mention, to put or keep pushing your mind in mode (aka "control") that operates entirely on lateral thinking and instinct?

I'm not sure, but I hope I succeeded asking the question in a way that it has the potential of being meaningfull beyond mere consept-relations, even though rationality, alas, was not to be avoided.

[indigobusiness]

81. Once again you've tied my quivering mind into a pretzel.

Your organic abilitiy to thrash this sort of thing into submission is so far beyond mine, I can only marvel at your questions...I can't even begin to answer in a meaningful way. So I'll do my best to answer in a quasi-meaningful way:

Once upon a time I carried a disturbing something on my back, maybe a monkey...I couldn't tell for sure from my point of view, it was a loathsome weight, regardless. After wrestling in all sorts of ways to unburden myself, and pushing myself, in foolish ways of my own devising, to come to terms with my wretched self, my bell was gonged...and it shook my foundations.

What came from the experience left me with the only fundamental certainty I've ever known, but it has been enough.

I'm doing what I can to distinguish myself from the morons on this bus. I'm just hoping to be one of the bozos, not the driver.

[indigobusiness]

78. Regarding your question about prayer/prayerwheel

The purpose and power of prayer is the resonant frequency generated by a praying sentient being. The energy produced is more of a product than a request.

[aneerkoinos]

80. Yes

That has been my understanding of prayer and magic, forms of art, 'tekhne'. And art is, by nature, intentional.

[indigobusiness]

82. Intention...

is everything.

[aneerkoinos]

83. Everything is everything

But vectors like intentions take place and/or direction in vector fields and/or vector space.

I'm so going down the Platonic tube, and I don't even know any math. Woe is me...

[indigobusiness]

84. Ok, smartypants.

Intention is everything, in terms of the human exercise of free-will.

Look...I can hardly spell, and can't puncuate at all, so don't make this hard for me with your math-challenged Platonic angst.

Everything is, most definitely, everything.

[H2O Man]

85. Mind control

It would seem silly to think of any meanful religion or philosophy advocating an out-of-control staus for the mind. Rather, one of the methods of reaching a goal in religion and/or philosophy is "mind-control," which is merely another way of saying "discipline."

Discipline, which contains the implication of disciple, is the oldest system of teaching and/or training. Just as the only goal of a good parent in disciplining his or her child is to instill self-discipline -- because it is ALWAYS unhealthy to attempt to develop control over anyone but one's self -- the only goal of a good religion and/or philosophy is to teach self-discipline, or literally self-mind-control.

In an unhealthy relationship, a teacher attempts to enforce his/her will upon a student who does not understand. In order to create a master-servant relationship, that teacher must always keep the student from achieving the level understanding which would result in self-discipline. Thus, we can identify the distinction between the teachings of Jesus the Nazarean and some mutant forms of "christianity": when he speaks of Conscious Love to his disciples in one passage, he states: "Ye are my friends." The meaning is clear: he is not desiring a master-servant relationship, but rather, by their following the path of self-discipline required to reach their goal, they become "friends," or equals of the same mind. Hence, we see the theme of unity, based upon equality, as one goal of self-discipline.

[aneerkoinos]

86. Indeed

That is the answer to my question that was meant to be rhetorical, but challengingly was not taken as such by the parallelary functioning meaningless religious philosophy that goes by the name "Indigobusines".

My humble self, allways the loyal servant of Shaitanne the Temptress, could not but take up the challenge and try to lure mr. Indigo by my devilish trickery into committing a sin by violating the philosophical religion that goes by her name: to utter few coherent words obeying the principles of linear logic and analytical thinking.

But vain! Vanitatis vanitatum, I didn't get to say HA! GOTCHA! and Shaitanne stands in shame as the blather that is a handle called Indigobusines was as incoherent as allways, and yet, perhaps, who knows, somehow, someway, potentially meaningfull - or, as you so succintly put it, meanful.

[indigobusiness]

87. I'd tell you to get a grip...

but you'd take it as instruction to play with yourself.



FOCUS

[indigobusiness]

88. Who knows how many universes exist?

I've got my hands full with this one, and nobody has shown me conclusively that even it does.

[aneerkoinos]

89. Nobody

Because the answer is not numerable, but most certainly infinite. We can, however, question if and how that infinite is conditioned, of how mighty infinite we are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite

It's hard to show conclusively that even this Universe exists, so you can either accept to play with speculative plausibilities or not play. Anyway, how I personally came by the idea of multiverse or many-worlds (if we leave beside David Deutch's interpretation of QT, which I find unquaint) and found it plausible, is the problem presented by Anthropic Principle: this universe is (or rather the values of physical (near)constants in this universe are), out of all possibilities and against all ods, very finely tuned so that observers like us can emerge to observe it.

That leaves two possibilities I can think of now, either it was designed with that purpose from the beginning by a malicious Creator (malicious because He made us ask), or it came by the God of Infinite Tries. Naturally, I find the latter more plausible, because if I was God I would be an Ockhamian Lazy God that wouldn't finely carve with his razor a special Universe to His liking, but just put the randomly working Universe-generating machine at work and take a nap after my Act of Creation.

I will skip the solipsistic theory of Quantum collapse from the superposition of all possible universes into this My Speciall Universe by the first act of observation, because I don't like collapse-interpretations and find Solipsism even more distastefull.

But to continue, there are cosmological suggestions for the Universe Generator like single repetitiously expanding-collapsing-bigbanging Universe, which will actually give finite number of tries before it happens to expand so fast that gravity can't pull it back, and our's is BTW a border-case, which to me makes the whole thing sound bit fishy. Then there is theory of continuous big-bang of universes, where even some conditionality is possible and not just pure randomness. Some say that this kind of Universe Generator is actually the bubbly quantum foam at the Planck scale. It might amuse you to know that Sir Roger Penrose, whose done a lot of theorizing about Planck scale, describes it as "web of spin".

[indigobusiness]

90. If it doesn't

what is this that fills my hands?

[aneerkoinos]

91. Observable n/t

[indigobusiness]

92. What about Penrose when

he argues that known laws of physics do not constitute a complete system, and that true artificial intelligence is impossible...he argues this based on claims that humans can do things outside the power of formal logic systems, such as knowing the truth of unprovable statements...

?

[H2O Man]

93. Sometimes when my daughter

is supposed to be doing her homework, she gets side-tracked on purely insignificant things. She still has to do her homework in order to pass her 5th grade classes, of course. But I've mentioned to her that getting side-tracked with nonsense can become habit-forming. It's okay to stop and chat with those who are determined to stay in 5th grade, but not to drop anchor with them.

[indigobusiness]

94. Am I the one dropping anchor

or the one in 5th grade?

[H2O Man]

95. You

are not my daughter!

[indigobusiness]

96. More's

the pity.

[aneerkoinos]

97. I thought

That in my previous post(s) I stated the current limits of my speculative understanding. I can write Gödel with umlauts, as it should be, but that's it.

World is yours to google.

[indigobusiness]

98. What did you edit out?

I want your complete opinion. I can't google that.

[aneerkoinos]

99. Nothing

I added the googlebility of world.

[indigobusiness]

100. Is nothing

absolute?

[aneerkoinos]

101. Not any More

Now "It's consept"

[aneerkoinos]

102. Interesting, actually

What kind of enlightment can you imagine taking place in character in a novel by Kazantzakis, later played by Anthony Quinn in a movie?

[indigobusiness]

103. Zorba's kind.

Now, I must dance...

[indigobusiness]

104. Consepsis

has you by the short hairs.

[aneerkoinos]

105. Sure, doc

I'm aware of the diagnose and accept it. It's the cure I don't know about, or that I even want to be cured. Let's be frank and say that I'm divided on the issue. :)

And now that I'm suffering from a fit of honesty, let's also say that that my anti-autoritarian good self absolutely hates know-bettery do-goodery pushy doctors who trample on its dear shadow. There it was... absolutely.

[indigobusiness]

107. Me too, and the last thing I'd hope for is you cured. Don't get me wrong.

Next time you lurch into a candid fit of lucidity , and find yourself flumoxed by the novel codswallop of it, take copious notes.

My anti-authoritarian bad self tries not to hate, even haters.

I think you know better.

[aneerkoinos]

109. HA! GOTCHA!

Your anti-authoritarian bad self practices mind-control! Shouldn't you be doing something about him, or is blasphemy OK in your religionorphilosophy?

What comes to knowing, I'm at stage where I try to recognize and realize and, as an adder, to impose my intention ("Willy") as laterally, intuitively and directly as it wants, if and when I realize and recognize it. As long as I do, I try to leave "better" for those that are. I'm not saying I constantly succeed, or ever, on any count.

These are the first excerpts from the story I just composed in my notebook.

[indigobusiness]

110. Why tease me with a mere excerpt?

I demand to know the full extent to which I've been wrongly or rightly had.

[aneerkoinos]

112. Hey!

What kind of mind-control are you trying to practice on a n00b convert to your religion, making demands allready?

I fear I've allready added to your addiction of my excerpts of dictioning ads about your religion...

[indigobusiness]

113. Have you

paid your dues?

[aneerkoinos]

115. No

I became schismatic sect before I had chance to.

[indigobusiness]

117. My religion

believes in second chances.

[aneerkoinos]

123. In MY religion

Chances are between zero and one.

[indigobusiness]

124. My religion

can beat up your religion.

[aneerkoinos]

126. Behold

It's beaten. :(















But I didn't make your religion feel sorry.

[indigobusiness]

130. My religion felt sorry

all the while.

[indigobusiness]

111. The "knowing" and"better" was in regard of hating.

Surely you can intentionally impose your wanting "Willy", in realization and recognition...laterally and directly, without that?

Have I still been had?


edit- btw I didn't say: You SHOULD know better. I said: I think you know better. There is no morallizing hypocritical blasphemy in that.
That was merely my opinion of what you appear to know.

[aneerkoinos]

114. Without hating

I feel there is a schism brewing up in our religion, you heretic! :)

If I recognize my irritabilities (aka hate) when I realize them, I cannot be without them unless I commit the sin of mind-control or the sin of untruthfulness. What that recognition does to my Willy regarding my next realization I can not know until the next moment.

>>>Have I still been had?<<<

I certainly don't have you, so who are you asking?

[indigobusiness]

116. You did say "gotcha";

therefore, implying my hadness. Which I successfully expunged from the official record via the very mootness of its wrongness: pragmatically, not morally.

No schism brewing, you are expected to cultivate your passions in all aspects, irritable and otherwise, truthfully. Livid living is not hating, ask Willy. And when you realize that's precisely where your mind resides, you will see you've sought controllers, all along.

[aneerkoinos]

120. Well

I did say "gotcha", but not at you but to your bad self, whose blasphemy of mind-control your words exposed.

No cake on YOUR face, I ate it allready. Hate is but a word now, all it ever was.

[indigobusiness]

121. Where does my badself end and my me begin?

I am my badself. That's all I've got.

[aneerkoinos]

125. I know the feeling

And I know you do too.

The feeling when joke goes so badly wrong that the audience don't get the joke that I am, and try to take me seriously and talk sense to my nonsense.

But I appreciate any audience and loveandhate all the feedback. Who knows, perhaps somebody, somewhere laughed.

[indigobusiness]

129. I figured you'd get the joke

but hate is too strong a word, even when joking.

Emmett Kelly Sr.
(1898 - 1979)

[aneerkoinos]

127. Thou Dost Edit Too Much n/t

[indigobusiness]

128. I am way too

imperfect.

[aneerkoinos]

118. To the editor

Yes, that was your opinion, taken as such and none taken. The blasphemy of mind-control was, like I said, your bad self's attempt to suppress a negative feeling. I think you know there's no moralizing hypocricy in blasphemy.

BTW, I just decided to make blasphemy a sacrament in my new brand new sect. I don't think that surprizes you.

[indigobusiness]

119. Nay and negatory

I would expect it to be among the highest virtues. But, it is moralizing hypocrisy in a finely twisted sense. Which, I thought you knew better(than me).

Speaking of virtues and vices and hating and such. You can lose your blues when you learn to objectify such things and see them as not really a part of your badself. Something you can set aside, and leave behind. No matter how dear they seem, now.

[aneerkoinos]

106. Adding is my thing

I'm an adder.

[indigobusiness]

108. I'm a multiplier.

[indigobusiness]

122. I know how many universes don't exist.

It just occurred to me.

[Stunster]

26. Demolishing Dawkins

I think the review at the link below is by far the best thing I've read on---and most devastating critique of---Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker. It's well worth reading patiently and carefully, because Willard's arguments are so damn powerful. He's one of my former professors.

http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=52

[indigobusiness]

29. Fascinating perspective. Thanks for posting this.

The dynamic alone, of this argument, reveals me as just a greasy spot on the floor. My questions seem rather simplistic in the face of these intellectual gymnastics. I suspect aneerkoinos might have something worthwhile to offer, though. I can't help but wish you would elaborate on your thoughts re this debate...

?

[Stunster]

31. I'm a big fan of Davies

I have read several of his books (The Mind of God, The Matter Myth, the one about time, and the one about life).

I'm a theist, and have posted quite frequently defending and arguing for that view. Not sure what else to add, unless you have a specific question for me...

[indigobusiness]

32. Just figured I might learn something from your opinion.

If you cared to frame it.

[lazarus]

38. powerful?

He feels the need to resort to childish tricks (that constant parenthetical speciesmaker). He fails to understand the basics of science. He blathers on endlessly about nothing, hoping that the sheer volume of his words will make up for the lack of content.

Very similar to many of my own philosophy professors, to be honest.

[Stunster]

41. That's a stunningly powerful

non-refutation of everything Willard says.

"Oh, he's just a trickster, damn him".

[lazarus]

42. The problem is

he doesn't actually say anything, except that he disagrees with Dawkins, and he just isn't sure why, but dammit, he's got a lot of neat rhetorical tricks to use and sucker in people who are impressed by that sort of thing.

I'm not.

[indigobusiness]

44. I'd say he is far more specific than you are.

And you seem impressed only by your own nebulous contentiousness.

[lazarus]

45. You can say it

But that doesn't mean it's true.

Nebulous contentiousness? Whatever. You seem to also judge quality of rhetoric by the number of polysyllabic words used. If that impresses you, fine. I prefer actual content.

[indigobusiness]

46. I'm not playing petty games or trying to impress you with vocabulary

I'm just asking for specifics in your criticism.

[lazarus]

47. It's hard to get specific

when attacking something as content-free as that article. That may be the most specific criticism I can give. It was meaningless, content-free babble.

[Stunster]

48. No it wasn't

but your post is.

[indigobusiness]

49. What's truly hard is taking someone seriously

who accuses someone of meaningless, content-free babble with meaningless, content-free babble. Where I come from, we call that hypocrisy. Sorry for the polysyllabic term, but I don't know another word for it.

[lazarus]

50. So, in your world

Saying something is content-free is in itself a content-free statement?

No wonder we can't find any common ground here, we're not even speaking the same language.

[indigobusiness]

51. Your criticism is content free

and that makes it babble.

[indigobusiness]

53. Diogenes

A student of philosophy, eager to display his powers of argument, approached Diogenes, introduced himself and said, "If it pleases you, sir, let me prove to you that there is no such thing as motion." Whereupon Diogenes immediately got up and left.

[indigobusiness]

54. ...

"Why is it, Diogenes, that pupils leave you to go to other teachers, but rarely do they leave them to come to you?"

"Because," replied Diogenes, "one can make eunuchs out of men, but no one can make a man out of eunuchs".

[aneerkoinos]

55. ...

"O Diogenes, what variety of wine is most pleasing to you?"

"Free wine", replied Diogenes.

[indigobusiness]

56. ...

"Drink to my health." Picasso's last words.

[aneerkoinos]

57. ...

You're into having a last word, aren't you... ;)

[indigobusiness]

58. ...

I'm no Picasso.

[aneerkoinos]

59. Neither am I

But sometimes I do

[indigobusiness]

63. The End