Nature of the Big Bang - Page 6 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

drgoodtrips · #76 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skynet

Do you really want to get into an argument of metaphysics or epistemology?

lol... no.

Quote:

You seem to have misinterpreted my cause. In the past few posts, I have been discussing what we know about the universe THUS FAR and what we potentially know. There is no evidence that intelligent design is at play here. We just label things as intelligent for what we don't know about the intricacies and order of the universe. Everything in the universe acts upon unconscious instinct, which actually makes things quite simple. We only confuse ourselves with a facade of reasoning by giving "intelligence" to unification and simultaneous function, when it is all simply a matter of cause and effect.

Well, okie dokie. But, I'm not the one arguing that the universe necessarily has a "design". That seems to be you and Captain Trips.

Quote:

Uhhhhhhh that is a CLEAR negative, sir.

I have no doubt that it's equally clear to you and him that each of you, respectively, knows more than the other.

fishjoel · #77 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Heh.

You're using your own infantile stereotyping of people who are good at math as evidence of some kind of conclusion. That's sound reasoning.

I've taken ungergraduate and graduate level courses revolving around the kind of math that, in your estimation, somehow prevents people from typing, talking or using computers. If you're interested, for every one that wears the same clothes for six days, there is one who comes to class in smart casual, one who fits more the mold of spacy contemplator, one who is aggressive and bullying, and even the occasional fellow with perfectly functional social skills.

Learning about Fourier transforms does not automatically make someone into Steve Urkel, whatever you might have learned from watching bad cable television and cartoons notwithstanding.

Right, so you just proved my case. You have taken a few classes on it. Seriously, math is easy. Being able to take some of those classes only makes you of reasonable intelligence.

Skynet · #78 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009

Quote:

Well, okie dokie. But, I'm not the one arguing that the universe necessarily has a "design". That seems to be you and Captain Trips.

I'm not sure how to put this in Layman's Terms correctly, but it has a design and at the same time it doesn't...

fishjoel · #79 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

It's a hypothesis (it doesn't rise to the level of theory). Basically, some of the mathematics behind universe descriptors doesn't work out, meaning that there is some extraneous factor not being accounted for. So, dark matter is really more like a place-holder so that the math works out. It will stand in until they identify its nature or the cause for the discrepancies. However, its existence could certainly be proven via observation or identification, though it's likely that it won't work out exactly as hypothesized.

Oh ok, I think I understand. There is something that can't be figured out so "something" has to be causing it. This something is nothing we have proof for and isn't even on the level of a theory yet. Yet, Skynet is using it as part of her statements to prove how things work. AKA taking something that has to proof as fact. AKA the same things as saying God did it.

Tanngrisnir3 · #80 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skynet

Read Richard Feynman. Please, please, please, please.

Yes, I've read him thanks. It's pretty clear that you're not understanding what he had to say, or misconstruing it.

Here, this is pretty succinct in terms of what you were addressing. Please note, there is zero 'metaphysical' about the prinicple.

Inquiring Minds - Questions About Physics

drgoodtrips · #81 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skynet

Once again, please read Richard Feynman.

I have. Quantum computing is something that I follow with interest, and nanotechnology is something I follow with great interest.

Now, much as I enjoy a good namedropping, why don't you present his quote in full context and explain to us why he said that we don't "need an uncertainty principle"? That is, what was he talking about doing that obviated it?

*grabs his popcorn*

CDavidNeely · #82 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009

Greetings and Felicitations,

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishjoel

You have taken a few classes on it. Seriously, math is easy.

Depends on the math doesn't it? Some math is easy and some math is hard. Can you do fourth order equations? Can you do LaPlace transforms?

Quick. Explain this math:

If math is easy then solve this equation: Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

wiggidy · #83 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Greetings and Felicitations,

Depends on the math doesn't it? Some math is easy and some math is hard. Can you do fourth order equations? Can you do LaPlace transforms?

Quick. Explain this math:

If math is easy then solve this equation: Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

I'm pretty sure I could do that, wanting to do it is a whole other story.

drgoodtrips · #84 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Right, so you just proved my case. You have taken a few classes on it. Seriously, math is easy. Being able to take some of those classes only makes you of reasonable intelligence.

What you think of my own intelligence or experience is irrelevant. I'm talking about what I've observed taking many courses like that. I was actually only a credit or two shy of a double major in math with my main major being computer science (and some theoretical physics as well, for good measure). So, I'd estimate that I've sat through something like 30 courses surrounded by the people you (inaccurately) describe.

As to your opinion that "math is easy" (but that physics requires some two shower per week maximum), that only tells me that you think of "math" as arithmetic and maybe algebra. Theoretical physics and theoretical mathematics are not only insuperable, but also identical. So, if you dismiss math coursework as "easy", you're also dismissing the physics that mystifies you so as "easy" (which sort of invalidates your whole vibe of "I don't get it, so I don't believe that anyone gets it")

drgoodtrips · #85 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Oh ok, I think I understand. There is something that can't be figured out so "something" has to be causing it. This something is nothing we have proof for and isn't even on the level of a theory yet. Yet, Skynet is using it as part of her statements to prove how things work. AKA taking something that has to proof as fact. AKA the same things as saying God did it.

Well, I wouldn't take her posts as representative of the scientific community or consensus in any way. She appears to be sort of freewheeling here.

CDavidNeely · #86 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009

Greetings and Felicitations,

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiggidy

I'm pretty sure I could do that, wanting to do it is a whole other story.

Solving the Napier-Stokes equation is worth $1,000,000. It one of the worlds major unsolved equations and is part of the Millennium Prize.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

wiggidy · #87 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Greetings and Felicitations,

Solving the Napier-Stokes equation is worth $1,000,000. It one of the worlds major unsolved equations and is part of the Millennium Prize.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

I was kidding

CDavidNeely · #88 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009

Greetings and Felicitations,

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiggidy

I was kidding

Come on. Wouldn't it be great to have your name down as the person who solved on these problems?

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

wiggidy · #89 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Greetings and Felicitations,

Come on. Wouldn't it be great to have your name down as the person who solved on these problems?

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

That would be pretty great, however, the time I would have to devote to something like that would not be worth it for me.

fishjoel · #90 (**permalink**) 07-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Greetings and Felicitations,

Depends on the math doesn't it? Some math is easy and some math is hard. Can you do fourth order equations? Can you do LaPlace transforms?

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

Nope, can't do it. Does that mean that I couldn't learn it? Your point is irrelevant. Do you know Arabic? I could post a bunch of Arabic lines and you wouldn't understand it but that doesn't mean that you couldn't learn it.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode