bascule

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4532608.stm

We model and predict reality, then choose from possible futures. Prediction is what gives way to choice, not non-determinism. The seemingly deterministic nature of reality (at least on the level at which we experience) is what allows us to model and therefore predict reality. I'd therefore argue that without a deterministic universe, consciousness could not exist.

One day people will learn that strong determinism and free will are not incompatible concepts

Quantum indeterminacy is the assertion that the state of a system does not determine a unique collection of values for all its measurable properties. How can this be extrapolated into a general statement about the universe itself? How do we know the indeterminacy isn't the result of unmeasurable properties (e.g. many worlds hypothesis)

It seems Stephen Hawking is trying to argue that quantum indeterminacy is an artifact of perspective, and not a definitive statement about the entire universe. As for me, I'll side with Hawking and Einstein.

I believe he was using "originally" in the sense of "before the UN took it"

That's also what makes you one of the coolest mods here

That's pretty much the case. Over a decade later, they would fight the Six-Day War against Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt, and win. US military aid to Israel is also considered one of the motivating factors of anti-American sentiment in Islamic countries. Personally, I think we should end it.

I'll let Stephen Hawking field this one:

That's just Einstein's way of stating that he's a strong determinist. Science has nothing to say yet about the validity of strong determinism. It's still very much up in the air.

On the contrary, I think the best thing those with scientific expertise can do around here is correct misinformation, particularly when spread by laymen with no real formal education in a particular topic (such as myself) I try my best not to spread misinformation, but when most of your knowledge comes either through conversation or the Internet, it's difficult to avoid. So I appreciate it whenever of the resident experts points out something I'm confused about and corrects me. Also, this place is sorely in need of a Climatology Expert, especially with all the climate change discussion going on. You might just fit the bill, especially after looking at your vitae

That's a lot fairer than I would've been... to a guy who claims that an emptying lake eroded through a mile of granite in less than a year

http://www.cnn.com/rssclick/2006/POLITICS/07/13/cialeak.lawsuit.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories The other day on Keith Olbermann the basic conclusion was the White House got through the whole Plame affair unscathed. Will this shake things up a little?

I'm curious though Pangloss, what's your take? Have the Bush tax cuts helped the economy? Is it worth it to be financed through China to the degree that we are?

Check out Evolution: LIES IN THE TEXTBOOKS http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1077170043893992263 "I DON'T THINK STUDENTS SHOULD BE LIED TO" -- "Dr." Kent Hovind This coming from a guy who teaches that T-Rex could breathe fire

Following "Dr." Kent Hovind getting arrested for tax evasion, I decided to look for his videos on video.google. Lo and behold, someone uploaded them! (and labeled them why??????, unreliable, pseudoscience, fraud, dishonest dino, an insult to the christian intellect, and absurd) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6833722951687298593 Hooray! Here are some of their claims: "Scientists have theorized that the T-Rex could probably breathe fire" "If you could get near him you could very easily pull off the arm of the T-Rex. He would die because he would bleed to death." "Dinosaurs are reptiles, and reptiles never stop growing." "Dinosaur footprints and people footprints were found together in Glenrose, Texas" "The most up to date scientific information shows that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago, they lived with man. There are still some around today." "Missionaries have reported that the natives are scared of Pterodactyl's [sic] still living around Kenya, Africa. The natives call them Kongamato."

walrusman, have you ever heard of the naturalistic fallacy?

Bonobos use sex as a sort of currency or a way of coercing others to help them

So all the Jews that died in the Holocaust didn't deserve to live?

Case instance = often! There are thousands upon thousands of atmospheric models, SkepticLance. There are even more scientific papers published using these models. Pointing out problems with one or two is not indicative of a systemic problem.

And here I thought this thread would be about Keith Olbermann

Not to mention how much of the massing national debt is being financed via China

Hmm, according to CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/12/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?section=cnn_topstories

It's easy to doubt. However you have no real criticisms against the science. You continually attempt to interpret graphs yourself and advance your own completely unevidenced pet theories, all of which contradict basic climate science knowledge. Whenever I ask for a paper to back up any of your claims you have failed to deliver. I've delivered paper after paper to corroborate my claims. You have no science on your side. Just ignorance. Perhaps my arrogance comes from being so baffled by your ignorance. I guess you construe my arguments as being "absolutely right" because I'm passionate about defending climate science against fear, uncertainty, and distrust. I certainly admit I and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists could be wrong. That's the nature of science: it's falsifiable. However you're trying to argue that climate science is not trustworthy, and doing so out of ignorance. So, I take it that you have absolutely no criticisms of the GCM input data of any of the 12 reconstructions on the graph I posted? Then why are you still arguing against it?