npts2020

I htink a better question would be how does one define "god". Even agnostics and athiests have definitions of the term they work with.

blogspot.com is free weblog hosting.

Sione; The rest of the last post that you cut off in your response explains in as perfect wording as I can think of why I think even chemistry is deterministic. Just because nobody is smart enough to figure it out doesn't make it not true. IMO in order for the world to be non-deterministic you would need to provide an example of something that exists that violates some underlying physical principle.

I know this is really splitting hairs but isn't the fact that an atom can lose an electron given certain impetus a physical property of the atom? (I agree that it is a fundamental chemical property as well)

The long and short of it is that a single point will not have motion until you introduce another point to to compare movement with. Motion is a comparative measurement (as opposed to mass which is an intrinsic measurement) meaning you need more than one thing to do a comparison.

Does one of the noises match your heartbeat rate? Your ears are very sensitive and will pick up whatever vibrations (within their range) are around, including your heartbeat and your fingers moving slightly.

And I thought Bruce Dern in "Silent Running" had it figured out. Seriously though, nobody has built a successful artificial biosphere yet. IMO this is due more to funding than technological hurdles but it is not as simple as it seems. Biosphere II was a good start even though it failed to quite provide a sustainable alternate environment, failure can teach more than success. We just need to keep trying, after all the first space ship didn't come anywhere close to landing on the moon.

I never claimed to percieve nothing, I said I could concieve that it existed. That still does not make it a useful description of any reality, however.

Sione; Anyone's opinion of what is or is not deterministic is just that. In my life I have seen nothing to make me think the universe and all of the processes therein are anything other than deterministic. The further humanity progresses, the better we are at predicting outcomes. If there is a field of human endeavor where this is not true, I am unaware of it which in my view supports the notion of determinism. There are many things that are easily explained today (computers, space travel, wireless telecommunications to name a couple), that people of only a century ago had no concept. The same will be true of future humans in any but the bleakest of doomer estimates. Whether we will ever get to the point of being able to predict everything in the universe is a different matter, but possibly not insurmountable. Predicting what future humans will be capable of is impossible without knowing the limits of knowledge (who knows that?). IMO the limit of our knowledge limits the ability to see the determinism exhibited in the world around us. I look forward to seeing your explanation for why you think it is impossible that everything in the universe is deterministic. BTW A computer algorithm that took into account every variable in the universe would be the universe (or at least indistinguishable from it).

Maybe I am wrong but I always thought that all chemical properties were also physical properties but some physical properties are not chemical.

I agree with Sisyphus that the term "god" needs better definition. If it is defined as simply anything greater than myself I definitely am a believer (you and I should be greater than just I). However, if it is defined as a supernatural entity who takes an interest in human affairs I would be on the unbeliever side. The closest definition I have seen to my personal opinion of the subject is non-denominational non-theist.

Sione; Emotions are predictable. Advertisers, politicians, preachers and interrogators (among many) know this and use it to their advantage. The fact that nobody can predict every single emotional state in a subject does not mean that emotion is not deterministic, only that there wasn't enough information to succeed in doing so. Exactly the same thing can be said about trying to predict the actions of a completely rational subject. Even if both are completely deterministic, it doesn't mean that any human (and by extension computer) will ever have enough information to predict every outcome. The problem is in knowing every variable in a highly dynamic system.

The problem a soldier faces in disobeying an illegal order is that often it is called mutiny and if everyone else seems to be doing it, not going along is exceedingly difficult.

AdrianB; Even if you can't build a perpetual motion machine, just building any machine that is more efficient than current ones would be quite a worthwhile achievement.

In general I would say that emotions are predictable. I can predict how someone I know well will react emotionally in the vast majority of situations. Predictability says nothing about the process. I can instinctively duck when a shadow is closing in on me to avoid being hit with a stray frisbee and not be emotional about it. I would not argue with you if you said instinct and emotion are arrived at by the same process but IMO they are not the same. What I am interested in discussing is the notion that rational thought and emotional thought are necessarily opposites.

I wonder if the "lifespan" of a virus can be compared to that of an archaeon? I have read that archaeons can survive inside solid rock for tens of thousands of years.

I generally agree with what Mr Skeptic wrote. That is why I would say that emotions are not the opposite of being rational, merely different. If you knew every detail of a person's psyche, you could predict very well how that person would react in a given situation. Humans are very complex entities, however, that is why emotions are not more predictable and don't necessarily follow what might be considered to be rational.

Note that there is no zero in Roman numerals.

Like swansont says it depends on context. If you are talking about something that is possible to predict (like solar eclipses) and just hasn't done it is can. If you are talking about something predicated on something else that is unpredictable (if A then B but you don't know what A is) it is could.

Great, now describe the impetus and how it works. (also I am kind of wondering how you have a void if there is a being of some kind there)

If the aliens name was Jabba the Hutt he would become a sumo wrestler or American football player. I wonder if Akibono is related.........

Sione; I would disagree with the notion that emotional response is the opposite of rational response. Sometimes they are the same. I would say they are merely arrived at through different mechanisms ie. deliberate thought processes vs. preprogrammed response.

Just curious, does that mean I shouldn't take the drugs the doctor prescribed to me?

IMO what you are asking is possible in theory but well beyond current technology and unlikely to be very efficient. Wouldn't it be simpler just to convert the matter you already have to the form you wish?

Well, one thing I notice is they don't make the claim that it is the cheapest energy generated. I am not saying that good management of nuclear power is impossible, just that there are better alternatives that are just as competitive costwise. I would like to see how the costs of disposal and decommissioning are accounted for and what, if any, subsidies the government has for the industry.