Dániel Boros
-
Posts
256 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Dániel Boros
-
-
I am afraid these towers were built using public funds.
-
- The Széchenyi Chain Bridge
- The Great Northern Railway
- The Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet
- Fallingwater
- The Gherkin Skyscraper
- SpaceShipOne
Just one more to go
Maybe I will make an album when we're finishedAll hail SpaceX
- The Széchenyi Chain Bridge
-
Indeed
Krauss admitted that at least some fundamental laws had to exist, but laws are only concepts, rules telling us that some things act in curtain ways. So there has to be something a particle, empty space or some kind of quantum field that works according to some law.
Carl Sagan had it right. If Krauss wants to take God out of the picture and argue with a theist he should just use Occam's razor on this issue.
-
I only started reading this book. But so far, so good. Krauss seems quite honest, brave, and high-integrity. And despite discussing the Big Issues -- including in ways most powerful Objectivist leaders will not be able to match, I imagine -- he's still modulated, well-controlled, modest, and prudent of language.
Most highly rational people will enjoy all this -- but not me, since I'm a natural firebrand!
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Anyway Stephen Hawking was also arguing for something similar and bashing philosophy somewhat in his last book.
-
Nothing is supernatural right?
It has one property that it has no property...
-
And without science, any definition is just words....
Than the definition of science is just words as well.
Empty space is not nothing. It's empty space.
-
If someone receives knowledge of a crime committed by one of his loved ones would be keeping that secret considered immoral?
A friend or family member is usually more valuable outside prison than inside.
Whatever harm the silence of this man causes is the result of non-action and not action.
Similarly not trying to save someone drowning isn't a crime either is it not?
-
Just because philosophers reject most of the works of other philosophers of the past does not make them a-philosophers the same way theists aren't really atheists simply because they reject most Gods.
A theist is someone who believes in a specific group of Gods based on so called "holy" scriptures. Usually one God and usually based on the Bible, Koran or the Torah (monotheists).
Someone who believes in God but rejects the validity of any scripture would be called a Deist.
Some notable Deists were: Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Voltaire and Robespierre .
-
I'm interested in board games like these:
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=Capitalism&rh=n%3A166225011%2Ck%3ACapitalism&page=1
Anyone has one? What are they like? How do you play?
thanks
-
No, we need specific things.
A specific scientific theory or discovery could qualify as well.
Computers were developed primarily by the military at first. IIRC ENIAC was initially developed for rapid ballistic trajectory calculations.So were spaceships by NASA and the USSR.
-
It is a mistake to think that simple fundamental laws and principles are incapable of producing complex outcomes. We observe this both with evolution and with things like spontaneous order, a major component in a free market society. You have not offered any way to either a.) measure complexity, or b.) determine "how much" complexity a process like evolution could create. Since this is in fact a futile task, the argument for ID inevitably reduces to hand-waving, as it has here.
There is no such thing as a "spontaneous" order. Planets move according to the laws of nature while people make decisions based on their rational self interest and preference. The order we see is as spontaneous as the things that causes them to be. That is why we call it order and not complexity. A complex entity is something that is more complex than the laws that create the order we see around us.
I feel we are getting somewhere. You have raised some good points. Why would it be futile? If we can observe that some things are more complex than others that it is a given that we can measure them as well otherwise everything would look the same. I would agree that it is difficult to measure complexity but it would be very easy to disprove ID this way. All you had to do is show me something that was created by the order of nature and is more complex than the simplest existing living being and you would have automatically disproved me. I am willing to argue about the complexity of anything you can think of.
Michael Behe wrote a book about this called the Edge of Evolution. One example of the power of evolution would be Malaria. It evolves and reproduces so fast that it becomes immune to any kind of medicine in a single year, but even after thousands of years it still can't beat someone who carries the genes for sickle cell disease. People with such a disease have a very high resistance against malaria and millions of people in Afirca have the genes for it and only a few outside of it. It is also possible to gain immunity by a different mutation that does not causes any disease, but Africans simply weren't lucky enough to get it in the past few thousand years (some dude in the west has got it).
Indeed. I have no idea where this simplicity or complexity in the universe is coming from but it is a straw man. If ID is to be believed, you have to accept the simple contradiction that the universe can naturally create/form/pop into existence an unproven supernatural entity of unlimited power so incomprehensible it is way beyond our understanding, but yet that same universe cannot naturally form a single celled ameba that is so simple you can explain it to schoolchildren in biology class.
If that were true I doubt you would be able to claim that a single celled amoeba is simple. Okay let me try to explain. A single celled organisms need matter and energy to survive and replicate. Therefore it has the means to consume matter for this purpose. Than it needs to break the matter into parts using sophisticated machines so that new machines could be built. In the process energy is created, but that energy must be stored. To store energy the cell needs an energy storage. The cell also has to be able to transfer parts and energy storage units inside the cell. All these functions must be regulated by a software. The software must be stored in a data storage unit and machines capable of interpreting the commands of the software must also exist. Information must be transfered to the control unit and change the behavior of the software when necessary. All the parts of the cell must be created inside the cell based on the software therefore all the machines must exist in reality and in the storage unit at the same time. Also when the cell divides the software must regulate the division so that both cells will survive the process. The storage unit and all the information inside it has to be replicate as well without too much errors.
And I didn't even got into the details...
If that's simple I don't want to know what you consider to be complex.
Unlimited power? When have I said anything like that? Unproven? There was a time when the theory of relativity didn't even exist so naturally that was unproven as well. Supernatural? From a philosophical standpoint it would have to be natural, but since the laws of nature aren't necessarily the same as the laws of physics supernatural could be accurate from a scientific model based view of the Universe.
Daniel, it looks to me as if you are not arguing for intelligent design (which is perfectly compatible with evolution), but for outright creationism.
The life we can now observe is not the same kind of life that would have existed at the beginning. Human beings didn't spring forth out of primordial ooze ready to make teddy bears. At some point, non-living matter formed into living matter; we know this because we have life. Some believe that the building blocks were formed before the dust swirling around the sun congealed into planet earth. That we do not still witness events of abiogenesis is unremarkable given that those building blocks probably formed prior to the earth's formation (and given the process of natural selection, including the extinction events that natural selection inevitably brings). No matter how the first life formed, from that point on ID and evolution are in agreement. ID was invented by and for religionists as a tactical retreat from creationism; it amounts to bible-thumpers saying, "Ok, so the earth isn't 6,000 years old and the basic assumptions of evolution are indisputable facts, so that "Adam and Eve" story is obviously bullshit. Wait! Not bullshit, just a parable (Whew! Good save). But... Who started it?"
We, as humans, have an intimate knowledge of recombinant DNA and its effects. This mechanism facilitates all sorts of processes, including the passing of familial traits, viral infection, mutation, and (of course) evolution. Human beings have been manipulating DNA directly for decades and indirectly for millennia. Today's Dogs, cats, livestock, bananas and other crops are all the result of human beings influencing the same processes at work in natural selection. Do you believe in DNA, Daniel?
ID is not compatible with evolution and yes I am arguing for creationism, but what choice do I have if I am going to argue against evolution? Every complaint of mine is thrown back at me in the form of argument against ID or creationism. People don't even try to think about these things.
When I speak of life I usually refer to the simplest known living being and not humans or something that has supposedly existed assuming that evolution is true. That would be assuming the conclusion.
No matter how life formed? The problem is, it does matter and it should matter. That's like saying no matter how Jesus got resurected or no matter how the donkey talked or...
I do not care who invented ID or the theory of Gravity (Fundamentalist Christian -> Newton). What matters is whether something is true or not. Just because you admit you are biased doesn't mean you are right.
I have already made several explanations and possibilities about DNA regarding ID. But here let me quote:
Dante, on 20 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:That is the case because the original code is the baseline for the modified organism's code, which is also what happens in evolution. There would be no reason for a designer to operate in this way.
Dante, on 20 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:Yes. It is a confirmed prediction of the theory with no reasonable alternative explanation.
Dante, on 20 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:The fact that you think I could possibly give you every piece of evidence in favor of evolution in one forum post illustrates that you clearly don't understand the breadth and the depth of the evidence, stretching much farther back than the snippet I just gave you. The fact that evolution made this prediction about the genome before it was confirmed is a strength of the theory.
Dante, on 20 March 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:The part where completely useless code that a designer has no reason to bother with, because it does not show up in the phenotype, follows patterns completely consistent with evolution through common descent. The only reason a designer would have to write the code in this way would be active deception; to make it look like things had evolved from a common ancestor even when they hadn't.
-
I see...
Than what about cars and computers?
-
How about roads? Are there any roads out there built not from taxpayer money?
-
The argument simply points out a contradiction in the design argument. If complexity implies design, and the designer is a complex sentient being, then he needs a designer himself, and so on. You don't need to go to the data when an argument is self-contradictory. That's how logic works.
Complexity implies a complex algorithm not necessarily a complex designer. In the absence of such an algorithm the latter becomes more likely.
I am not claiming that any kind of being is too complex to come about through natural processes, because that would imply that I am aware of all natural processes in existence. I am only claiming that this life that we can observe is too complex to come about through the known natural processes in the known natural World.
It is obvious that if simplicity was a requirement of the Universe than there would be nothing at all since there can be nothing that is more simple than nothing. The complexity required for the creation of the known Universe and life might have been there all along. How could the Universe possibly create life if the Universe was not complex enough to create life?
You can't deny ID based on philosophy alone. Are the known physical laws complex enough to create life? That is not something philosophy can answer.
It should be measured how much complexity evolution can create and if it's not enough than something else is responsible for life or life simply does not exist.
-
Those two are great!
Does anyone know of any famous skyscraper ?
P.S. here's a picture of the bridge:
-
Criteria:
- must have been payed by private funds
- has to be amazing
I know of one:
The Széchenyi Chain Bridge
wiki
The Széchenyi Chain Bridge (Hungarian: Lánchíd) is a suspension bridge that spans the River Danube between Buda and Pest, the western and eastern sides of Budapest, the capital of Hungary. It was the first permanent bridge across the Danube in Budapest, and was opened in 1849.
The bridge has the name of István Széchenyi, a major supporter of its construction, attached to it, but is most commonly known as the Chain Bridge. At the time of its construction, it was regarded as one of the modern world's engineering wonders. It has asserted an enormous significance in the country's economic, social and cultural life, much as the Brooklyn Bridge has in New York and America. Its decorations made of cast iron, and its construction, radiating calm dignity and balance, have elevated the Chain Bridge to a high stature in Europe. It became a symbol of advancement, national awakening, and the linkage between East and West.
The bridge was designed by the English engineer William Tierney Clark in 1839, after Count István Széchenyi's initiative in the same year, with construction supervised locally by Scottish engineer Adam Clark (no relation). It is a larger scale version of William Tierney Clark's earlier Marlow Bridge, across the River Thames in Marlow, England.
It was funded to a considerable extent by the Greek merchant Georgios Sinas who had considerable financial and land interests in the city and whose name is inscribed on the base of the south western foundation of the bridge on the Buda side.
The bridge was opened in 1849, and thus became the first permanent bridge in the Hungarian capital, after the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. At the time, its center span of 202 metres (663 ft) was one of the largest in the world. The lions at each of the abutments were carved in stone by the sculptor, Marschalko János [2]. They are visibly similar in design to the famous bronze lions of Trafalgar Square by Edwin Henry Landseer with Marochetti (commissioned 1858, installed 1867), but they were earlier - installed 1852 [3]. They are also smaller (and appear from below to lack tongues). The bridge was given its current name in 1898.
It was designed in sections and shipped from the United Kingdom to Hungary for final construction.
Any other wonders out there
? - must have been payed by private funds
-
And gaps exist in the theory because modern science is still very much in it's infancy. We have gaps in ALL the sciences. Can you name one single science without gaps?
Yes but no other field of science thinks that this excuse validates anything. If you don't know, than you don't know. And if you can't prove evolution than you can't prove evolution.
An argument from ignorance is not an argument...
probable no matter how unlikely
That's a self contradiction. It's like saying that a talking donkey is probable simply because there are a lot of donkeys in the World.
You seem to be arguing against this first part as if I that offered it as proof. Once again, I was disputing your claim that evolution proponents don't consider that their theories are unlikely. I disputed your claim by demonstrating that it was probable no matter how unlikely. If I wanted to get into real statistics I would talk about the fact early oceans are calculated at 10^34 liters, the amount of diluted peptide chains in that volume (can’t remember off the top of my head), and how many chances in a million years those could interact on a single planet. Then you can add the sextillion star systems to that. No matter what crazy number you come up with life could form.
Again you are appealing to probability. We do not know how likely life could arise here or anywhere in the Universe. End of story.
But I’m not here to prove evolution or the theory of how life formed; I’m here to disprove the idea of ID. Thayt was the point. Evolution is a simply phenomenon that everyone partakes in every time they take their non-feral dog for a walk or they eat a stake from domesticated cattle. How life formed is an interesting discussion with the science being more arguable. ID however is not possible.
You are right about one thing – Statistics is only to show chance and not the whole story. Life occurring naturally however is not about chance - that is just a common straw man creationist’s use to dispute scientific theories of life. Life is anything but chance since it is about causal relationships. That drives the odds down quickly when you realize science demonstrates why certain reaction are more likely or for certain species to develop the way they do. An eye, for example, is not chance. It simply had to form that way as a reaction to light stimuli on sensory organs causing adaption over a period. That however is a different subject outside of the point.
My point was ID. The “proof” I did later offer up is a simple logic problem to destroy the idea of a designer. Simply put, a designer is statistically more improbable than you or I. I’ll reiterate it this way:
Person = A
Supreme Designer = B
B > A in power and intellect since B designed A and the universe A lives in
We can establish that the chance of A naturally evolving as X
If B>A with the chance of A being naturally formed is X, then we know that the chance of B naturally evolving is greater than X since B is greater than A.
Chance of universe generating B = X+
For the universe to have naturally generated B then it is even more likely that the universe would have naturally generated A since A is less complex than B. Or to put it bluntly, the idea that life could not naturally evolve simply ignores the elephant in the room – The designer would not have evolved either. An intelligent designer is the ultimate improbability since it is by its own definition more complex than everything else in the universe.
Math demonstrates the logic holes in believing in a supreme designer that can magically exist when life cannot despite that life being more probable. There is no argument against that fact, except one: Magic. This is where we get to the rub of this argument…
You can ignore any and all data with that kind of argument. Sorry that's just not how science works.
What makes you think that whatever existed originally had to be simple? Where is the law that says that a theoretical Universe could only exist if it was simple and primitive?
Magic would not reveal a greater universe, it would render the universe meaningless since random people can arbitrarily choose to ignore facts and make things behave against their nature. Magic is the fantasy that A =/= A on demand. The “discovery” of magic would destroy everything known about the universe, and worse make knowledge of reality irrelevant. Someone who can make A =/= A renders reality arbitrary and life unintelligible since there is no way to identify facts. There are no facts, just the whims of a super being that can break the universe on demand. The idea that the edge of the universe holds superior beings that live with A =/= A makes a good Lovecraft tale but notice those tales are horror stories. For a good reason I might add.
You can claim to not accept evolution based upon science then set about coming up with your own scientific reason for life to naturally generate. That is the purpose of science. It’s also good to challenge the status quo. But you can’t claim magic. Magic is just the assertion that contradictions exist and that you can make anything work if you plug in a supernatural McGuffin into the holes.
Your intelligent designer either evolved naturally according to demonstrable laws of nature, which means we would have too, or it’s magic. The first makes ID irrelevant and the later makes the argument irrelevant.
Contradictions arise when our scientific model does not correctly align with the Universe. Magic is not a cause it is a sign that the current dogma cannot stand on its own feet any longer.
After all anything that is not considered valid by the current rules of science is by definition magic.
-
I think you may have missed my question at the end.
I am not trying to recruit anyone I am just asking if this would work or not inside objectivist ethics.
Is this something that should discouraged, promoted or just ignored?
I mean there is some value any human has over a rock or an animal from simply existing even if that value is minimal and much less than our own.
So acting for keeping that value would be an objectively desirable action would it be not?
-
done
-
The most common objection to objectivism I hear is that objectivists don't want to help each other or those in need. Obviously altruists hold the idea of helping others above all else including themselves as well. Altruism is a simple concept and one can understand how it isn't necessary to go into detail who to help if everyone should be helped.
Ayn Rand said that there are perfectly good reasons to try and help others. She mentioned love as the primary reason, but what about the people who are not loved and have little value to others? What of the people who can't survive on their own? While Rand didn't deny that one should have the freedom to do charity she certainly did not approve of it. While it is true that charity in of itself is not a moral virtue that doesn't mean one should not be involved with it, however what could justify giving some of our rightfully earned money to someone who has literally no value to us? Even if every human had some minimal basic value there would always be a lot of people who possessed more value than a stranger. Unlike in the case of our loved ones helping strangers could not be justified by the value they themselves carry. So we shouldn't help them right? If they have no value than there is no reason to give to them anything, but than why is "helping the poor" so important to so many people? Is it just cultural bias?
Some areas of human nature strongly suggest that helping the poor is an important aspect of any human being. Empathy is a real emotional response to the suffering of someone else.
I would say empathy works like this:
I. the person recognizes someone in pain (hunger, depression, loneliness etc..)
II. the person will feel some of this pain. (more pain if it is a loved one less if it is not)
III. the person would naturally want to stop his own pain and to that would be only possible by helping the that someone.
IV. depending on the values of the person and the suffering of the one being helped the help can vary in nature and in amount.
Empathy is a negative feeling and by that I mean the more you have it the less you want it and the more you wish to get rid of it. Love is a positive feeling. The more you have it the more you want it... like drugs.
Now just because a lot of people have empathy doesn't mean that helping others is justified. After all we should not act on our whims and who knows whether acting according to our own mammalian nature would serve our rational self interest. Ayn Rand -as far as I can tell - did not justify or approve such ways of thinking even if she often practiced it herself. She did smoke cigarettes even though that was not in her best long term rational self interest. It was only something her body identified as necessary for existence even though it clearly wasn't ( unlike food ).
So is there any real, justifiable reason to help the poor? People who are unable take care of themselves including their basic needs would cease to exist if others didn't help them. People don't just exist in the present but in the future as well, which means that if they die now the possibility that they will have value to us and to themselves will go with them. Letting them die would not be in our rational self interest but letting them continue their life the way they do would not be in our interest either. We value those who live by the same values we do therefore the main goal of helping others would be to make them self reliant and selfish. So as I see it we - who agree with the concepts above - should have organized voluntary help that could rehabilitate and help integrate the poor into the market and society.
So.. is this in accordance with objectivism or not?
-
I remember Hitchens saying something about this when he was lecturing about free speech.
Hungary has laws against holocaust and communism deniers. Don't think anyone has been convicted though...
-
Right. What religion is this from?
Well if it was from a religion that religion would be deism.
-
Just one: the primacy of existence.
The claim that God created everything is not only a(nother) logical contradiction, it also contradicts something even more fundamental than Logic: that consciousness is a part of existence.
The antithesis of that is that consciousness is the source of existence.
What if God transformed some part of the Universe into something else the same way as someone can transform wood into a wooden table?
Making/creating a table doesn't mean you have to create wood from nothing, right?
-
Does God contradict something else other than the law of identity?
Seven Wonders of Capitalism
in Engineering & Technology
Posted
How about the Iphone?
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-25/tech/31396858_1_iphone-business-profit-apple
Most profitable business in the World!