The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

[Mark A. Baker]

Taj: Did I say all that?

Taj: No, I didn't.

Taj: Well gee whiz, now I'm talking to myself.

Taj: I like to think then that you're having an intelligent conversation.

Taj: Thanks. But what I would have said is that keep in mind Trinity said science assumes the universe is deterministic. That has to be the basic assumption in order for science to proceed.

Taj: But it is an assumption based on inductive reasoning, not deductive reasoning. If the universe was deterministic then the factors responsible for this post and for lkwdblds error which got you talking to yourself was set in motion when the Big Bang happened.

Taj: That's right.

Taj: But if that is right, then there is no such thing as Free Will.

Taj: Who told you you could say that?

Taj: Well, I believe in Free Will.

Taj: I saw Free Willy in the theater, but I don't believe in Free Will. It is a deterministic universe. You only think you make your choices because you don't kow the factors that are behind it.

Taj:

Taj: Well, answer that.

Taj:

Taj: Why aren't you answering.

Taj: I chose not to. But now I will.

Taj: Very funny.

Taj: If there is no free will and only pre-determined factors for everything, then how can we say someone is responsible for a good or bad thing?

Taj: We can't.

Taj: Are you crazy?

Taj: Well, I'm talking to myself, ain't I.

Taj: Well if you are right, then there is no such thing as justice? Because if no one is responsible for anything then there are no good or bad acts, just effects from prior causes.

Taj: That's right. Good and bad are subjective constructs.

Taj: What is a subjective construct?

Taj: A subjective construct is simply and idea that people have created. Good and bad, Free Will, are all simply ideas people have created.

Taj: So isn't the idea of a deterministic universe a social construct?

Taj: Well, it is a scientific idea. It is the consensus of those scientists whose ideas are supported by mathematics.

Taj: So it is a social construct.

Taj: Well. yeah.

Taj: So we're back to square one.

Taj: I guess so.

Taj: No wonder I'm talking to myself.

Taj: Freud has a theory for that.

Taj: I don't believe in any of Freud's theories. What did he know? He last direct descendent just died last year. He was eighty-tits years old.

Taj: Oy Vey!

The Anabaptist Jacques and
The Anabaptist Jacques

Mark A. Baker

[CarmeloOrchards]

I was thirteen or fourteen when I first heard this.

I miss folk music.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I was thirteen or fourteen when I first heard this.

I miss folk music.

I bet he hated having all those girls screaming.

It smothers the art.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Leon]

So Taj, is wondering about which prior causes - which is to say which molecule pushed which other one etc to such a great extent - made it possible for Mozart to compose all that music - is that in accord with Science (notice the capital S) and is rejecting that idea that molecules did it a logical fallacy? Is that what you're saying? Or is determinism a load of crap?

[Hatshepsut]

No screamers.

[Hatshepsut]

Woman stuck on waterslide sues for $400k
Gold Coast Bulletin
June 14, 2012

http://mobile.news.com.au/travel/new...-1226395088272

WET AND WILD AUSSIE STYLE

[Hatshepsut]

deleted

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

So Taj, is wondering about which prior causes - which is to say which molecule pushed which other one etc to such a great extent - made it possible for Mozart to compose all that music - is that in accord with Science (notice the capital S) and is rejecting that idea that molecules did it a logical fallacy? Is that what you're saying? Or is determinism a load of crap?

What both of them are doing is each one is presenting a different side of the argument.

Although it runs deeper, that is the basic view of each side.

And also they show that the argument is unsolvable at this point in our knowledge, wisdom, luck and molecular mosh pit.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[lkwdblds]

So Taj, is wondering about which prior causes - which is to say which molecule pushed which other one etc to such a great extent - made it possible for Mozart to compose all that music - is that in accord with Science (notice the capital S) and is rejecting that idea that molecules did it a logical fallacy? Is that what you're saying? Or is determinism a load of crap?

Is that what he is saying? I hear Big Bang proponents debate Bible proponents every chance I get. Dennis Prager often has them on his show for debates. One professor from England, with a Phd, was on Prager's show last year; he was the most objective Big Bang advocate whom I have heard so far. He said that there was one thing about the Big Bang Theory that really puzzled him and that could not be explained.

He stated the problem as follows: In the primordial ball of matter that exploded, all the blueprint for all the constants which exist in Physics had to be present. For example, the blueprint for all the elements in the periodical table had to be present, the freezing and melting points of water, the velocity of light, Avogadro's number, freezing and melting points for all the elements, you name it and its code had to be present in this densely packed ball of matter before the matter exploded to start this universe. This physicist could not get around that without admitting some sort of principle of intelligent design. How were these constants preset before this random explosion occurred?

This physicist and all others whom I have heard espoused randomity and evolution as the motivating factors in how the Universe developed and reached its present state.

Perhaps in the year and a half since I heard Prager's program, whatever theory TAJ is using to explain things has come into existence to explain how all the constants were preset into the primordial ball.

On a related topic, speaking of randomity, it used to be said that if a room full of monkeys pounding on typewriters could type randomly; given enough time, all the novels of mankind, all the scientific discoveries, the history and in short, all of everything ever written would eventually be written on typewriters by the monkeys by random chance.

A couple of years ago, I heard a story where a room full of monkeys and typewriters was actually uncovered. The monkeys had been banging away on the typewriters, unsupervised, for an extended period. Finally someone became aware of this and came to feed the monkeys and clean up. The typewriter printouts were examined to see if even one sentence or clause of intelligible writing had been done by any monkey, just by chance. They didn't find anything like that. What they did find was that all the typewriters froze up because they were clogged with monkey feces. The monkey shit all over the lab had quickly brought any typewriting to a halt! So much for that theory about monkeys randomly typing!
Lakey

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Is that what he is saying? I hear Big Bang proponents debate Bible proponents every chance I get. Dennis Prager often has them on his show for debates. One professor from England with a Phd, which he had on last year was the most objective one I have heard so far. He said that there was one thing about the Big Bang Theory that really puzzled him and that could not be explained.

He stated the problem as follows: In the primordial ball of matter that exploded, all the constants which exist in Physics had to be present. For example, the blueprint for all the elements in the periodical table had to be present, the freezing and melting points of water, the velocity of light, Avogadro's number, freezing and melting points for all the elements, you name it and its code had to be present in this densely packed ball of matter before the matter exploded to start this universe. This physicist could not get around that without admitting some sort of principle of intelligent design.

This physicist and all others whom I have heard espoused randomity and evolution as the motivating factors in how the Universe developed and reached its present state.

Perhaps in the year and a half since I heard that physicist on Prager, whatever theory TAJ is using to explain things has come into existence to explain how all the constants were present in the primordial ball.

On a related topic, speaking of randomity, it used to be said that if there existed a room full of monkeys pounding on typewriters randomly, given enough time, all the novels of humanity, all the scientific discoveries, the history and in short, all of everything ever written would eventually be written on typewriters by the monkeys.

A couple of years ago, I heard a story where a room full of monkeys and typewriters was actually uncovered. The monkeys had been banging away on the typewriters, unsupervised, for an extended period. Finally someone became aware of this and came to feed the monkeys and clean up. The typewriter printouts were examined to see if even one sentence or clause of intelligible writing had been done by any monkey, just by chance. They didn't find anything like that. What they find was that all the typewriters froze up because they were clogged with monkey feces. The monkey shit all over the lab had quickly brought any typewriting to a halt! So much for that theory about monkeys randomly typing!
Lakey

There was a philosopher and a Nobel Prize winning physicist having a discussion about the Big Bang.

Physicist: There was nothing, then a spark, and an explosion that created the universe.

Philosopher: You can't get a spark out of nothing.

Physicist: I am a Nobel Prize winning physicist and I know a lot about many, many things. I am am telling you that a spark came out of nothing.

Philosopher: Well, I am merely a philosopher, and I don't know a much about a lot of things. But I do know a lot about nothing.

My point here is to explain to you that neither you nor I are physicist. That doesn't mean I'm saying they know everything. But they do know at least about what they are talking about.

I know a little about philosophy. and much less about physics.

But I wouldn't presume to say I know more about the physics that they are talking about than they do.

Also, you sometimes confuse me with others.

The Anabaptist Jacques