Re-introduction

[CSharp]

I'd like to re-introduce myself. Sort of.

The posts I make here are merely opinions. Not even opinions, really, but more like suspicions. They are conclusions drawn from the information I have with the caveat that if contradictory information comes to light, my "opinions" will change. i.e. If I miss something, I want to know about it.

It is my goal in life to put 2 and 2 together and NOT get 5. If there is a flaw in my thinking, I want to know about it and I would be grateful for having it pointed out, not offended.

If you simply don't like what I say, tell me why. We can talk about that too. I am of the opinion that all information is good information and I am here because flaws in my thinking tend to be revealed by thoughtful, intelligent and mild people who don't want to fight and seldom say what's really on their mind, publicly.

Anyone can PM me if they don't want to publicly reveal what they think.

As I said, I won't be offended. Sometimes I'm impatient with glib replies, but that's only because it keeps those whose thoughts interest me from speaking up.

Be fearless. If you want to reply to me publicly but just don't want to deal with glib replies, don't worry about them. Ignore them. Let me deal with them. No problem.

If you want a sounding board for unorthodox thoughts you have on matters of sociology, psychology, spirituality or politics but don't want to do it publicly, pm me.

The most corrupt power is the power to sugarcoat a personal attack. People think words can't hurt anyone. And they're right. But words CAN hurt EVERYone when they are used to keep thinkers and philosophers silent. Be brave.

Thank you.

 

[iBrian]

Erm...hello again.

I'm sure you'll be safe expressing opinions here - that's all any of us do.

It's a chilled and civil environment. And so it shall remain.

 

[CSharp]

Erm...hello again.

I'm sure you'll be safe expressing opinions here - that's all any of us do.

It's a chilled and civil environment. And so it shall remain.

It isn't my safety I'm worried about. Some hold their view of reality very dear and it literally hurts them when it doesn't test well and I'm not going to do that. That's all. I need people who aren't going to go off the deep end when they find out that something they believe probably isn't true. There aren't many. Not living, that is.

If you like your little community as it is, then you don't want me here. And this does not offend me. But I thank you for your concern.

 

[louis]

It isn't my safety I'm worried about. Some hold their view of reality very dear and it literally hurts them when it doesn't test well and I'm not going to do that. That's all. I need people who aren't going to go off the deep end when they find out that something they believe probably isn't true. There aren't many. Not living, that is.

If you like your little community as it is, then you don't want me here. And this does not offend me. But I thank you for your concern.

To CSharp -
I like your attitude because it's similar to my own.
When I was a child, no specific set of "beliefs" was ever instilled in my mind nor has any ever made sense to me
as an adult. The only philosophy that really impressed
was "Objectivism" -the ideas of Ayn Rand- although
I don't agree with all that either.
I'm just curious as to why people "reach" for mystical
or magical explanations when rational explanations are
available for most things. Most things in physical reality
anyway - and this IS the reality in which we live.

Louis...

 

[iBrian]

It isn't my safety I'm worried about. Some hold their view of reality very dear and it literally hurts them when it doesn't test well and I'm not going to do that. That's all. I need people who aren't going to go off the deep end when they find out that something they believe probably isn't true. There aren't many. Not living, that is.

The simple thing is, your comments are a mirror that works both ways. Can you be sure of the truth of your own opinions? Could people here reveal your logic to be flawed in whatever opinions you may have formed?

At the end of the day, so long as there is civility here, I am happy; so long as there is neutrality, this community remains balanced; so long as there is mutual respect, this place can thrive.

I once believed that I had stumbled into an idea that could destroy certain belief. With great trepidation I whispered it to people I knew, only to be told that they had already considered such a thing. What was new was not the idea, but simply my realisation of that idea.

You could be quite surprised at the lengths that people will be happy to go to discuss different ideas.

 

[CSharp]

The simple thing is, your comments are a mirror that works both ways. Can you be sure of the truth of your own opinions? Could people here reveal your logic to be flawed in whatever opinions you may have formed?

At the end of the day, so long as there is civility here, I am happy; so long as there is neitrality, this community remains balanced; so long as there is mutual respect, this place can thrive.

I once believed that I had stumbled into an idea that could destroy certain belief. With great trepidation I whispered it to people I knew, only to be told that they had already considered such a thing. What was new was not the idea, but simply my realisation of that idea.

You could be quite surprised at the lengths that people will be happy to go to discuss different ideas.

1. Knowing the truth and eliminating untruths are two entirely different things. I don't have beliefs, proper, nor do I presume to know the truth.

2. Our ideas regarding "civility" and "respect" are incompatible. Is it civil to even suggest that someone pretend to be something they are not because what they truly are is unacceptable? I don't fit in here and I'm okay with that. I don't mind being "unacceptable". I don't even mind when people try to say I'm unacceptable without actually saying it so they can pretend to be civilized. Granted, I wish they didn't get upset when I choose not to play, but there it is. Can't have everything, eh?

3. I neither whisper nor feel trepidation. I haven't the time.

-- I know I'm rather off-putting but that's just the way it is. I'm not going to pretend and tiptoe around the feelings and beliefs of the easily offended. They don't have anything I want. Others are happy to do it and that's fine. I'm not. Which is not to say that there is anything wrong with it. There isn't. Everything is copacetic. It just isn't my cuppa tea.

4. I can't remember the last time I was surprised.

 

[CSharp]

To CSharp -
I like your attitude because it's similar to my own.
When I was a child, no specific set of "beliefs" was ever instilled in my mind nor has any ever made sense to me
as an adult. The only philosophy that really impressed
was "Objectivism" -the ideas of Ayn Rand- although
I don't agree with all that either.
I'm just curious as to why people "reach" for mystical
or magical explanations when rational explanations are
available for most things. Most things in physical reality
anyway - and this IS the reality in which we live.

Louis...

One man's logic is another man's magic.

 

[louis]

magic

One man's logic is another man's magic.

To CSharp ....

I'm intrigued by your reference to "magic"....
I don't think there magic is real but I know many peple
wish it were real. Maybe that's why they get so much
enjoyment out watching a "magic act", even though
they know intellectualy that it's a trick.
I enjoy such things too, but after I've seen the trick
from out front, the next thing I want to do is go and
watch it from backstage to find out how it was done-
just to re-assure myself that it WASN'T real.
I'm afraid that's also my reaction when I hear people
talk about their beliefs - I want to look at them from
another angle .

Louis...

 

[CSharp]

To CSharp ....

I'm intrigued by your reference to "magic"....
I don't think there magic is real but I know many peple
wish it were real. Maybe that's why they get so much
enjoyment out watching a "magic act", even though
they know intellectualy that it's a trick.
I enjoy such things too, but after I've seen the trick
from out front, the next thing I want to do is go and
watch it from backstage to find out how it was done-
just to re-assure myself that it WASN'T real.
I'm afraid that's also my reaction when I hear people
talk about their beliefs - I want to look at them from
another angle .

Louis...

Perfectly understandable and a wise course of action.

When speaking of the magical versus the logical, I always go to the root of the matter which, to me, is existence itself.

Seems to me everyone agrees there is a "Source of All Things". Apparently, the only point of contention is whether or not this Source is/was self aware. Personally, I vote for the source of "The Big Bang", or whatever scientific theory is popular today, because I am of the opinion that there simply ain't a Bang Big enough, in and of itself.

There appear to be physical laws governing what is (and isn't) i.e. when A occurs, B follows. Is there someone or something that knows each and every aspect of this mechanism intimately? Who knows? But wouldn't the very existence of such a mechanism preclude the magical randomness evolution theory demands?

Evolution theory seems rather mystical to me. It claims to be based on the very thing it condemns. Science. The idea that order, randomly and by chance, came from chaos seems about as non-scientific as one can get. When A is followed by B, which science tells us is how things work, then C and/or D simply aren't possible. We can't have physical laws and the "magic" of an infinite number of possible outcomes, can we? Aren't they mutually exclusive?

Whatever started the ball rolling happened a very long time ago. And if it's all based on chance, it's been rolling sevens, at the nuclear and/or the biological level, ever since. (Or craps, depending on one's attitude.) But any scientist will tell you that such "mystical magic" simply isn't possible when it comes to rolling dice. So how is it magically made possible at the atomic level?

It seems the scientifically-minded will only allow for the scientific exploration of stuff that doesn't offend their beliefs. Which is a very non-scientific, superstitious and "religious" way of operating, if you ask me. Such an attitude is fine for religion which doesn't really claim to be logical or provable, but not for an art that claims the throne in both those kingdoms and demands the allegience and respect of all and sundry.

And this is probably all very offensive, for which I apologize, in advance.

 

[iBrian]

Nothing offensive at all - and the principle of "A follows B" I believe goes under the general name of causality.

It was especially populer in the Newtonian view of existence, in which everything existed within a "clockwork universe". Any single event in the universe could therefore be predicted by examining enough information about an earlier state of the universe. Of course, the argument from a theological perspective went by the way that only God could ever be aware of all the information erquired to make that prediction.

Then came Quantum Physics, which effectively destroyed the entire concept of Newton's "clockwork universe", by demonstrating an inherent randomness to existence - at least, at the micro (technically, nano -> pico) level of existence.

This conclusion was so profoundly shocking that Albert Einstein, in vehement opposition to Quantum Physics in the early days, made the now very famous statement in retort: "God does not play dice!"

The problem is that Quantum Mechanics can be mathmatically tested at the micro level to one of the highest degrees of accuracy known to science.

The extraordinary mystery is how Quantum Mechanics actually applies to our own level of perception of reality. One of the biggest issues in modern physics is how on earth to reconcile two of the greatest achievements in physics - one of which describes the micro level (Quantum Mechanics), and the other describing the macro level (General Relativity) - into a single coherent whole for describing the phenomena of the universe.

Both of these great theories disagree at a fundamental level, so there is no known way to reconcile them together. This even suggests the possibility of a third theory, from which both Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity imperfect describe aspects of.

It remains to be seen what comes from research into this issue. For the moment, a lot of physics gives the distinct imperssion of limping forward, well aware of building itself upon ever less and less of a secure theoretical basis.

A general but enjoyable ramble.

 

[CSharp]

Yeah Quantum Mechanics!!!!

I love quantum physics! Have you tried the quantum brownie diet? Yum!