The New York Times have "Chart[ed] the web of debt exposure among sagging economies"
Infinite Thread XXXXI
8 hours ago
Showing posts with label Miscellaneous. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Miscellaneous. Show all posts
24 October, 2011
01 September, 2011
22 August, 2011
Still no Higgs
Apparently the Higgs boson has not been found in the energy range predicted to be most amenable to its detection, casting doubt on its existence. The search now moves to lower and higher energy ranges, in which Higgs is less likely to be found.
According to James Gilles, the director of communication for Cern, it is now that the real work starts.
"In some mass areas, the Higgs is much easier to see than in others so in some mass areas it was always going to be easier to find it or exclude it quite quickly," he told BBC News.
"And now what we're being left with is the harder part; the regions where it's harder for us to see and harder to pick out the signal from the background."
The ranges left after these results suggest that the Higgs is either quite a light particle, below about 145 GeV, or a heavy one, above 466 GeV. A couple of islands in the middle, around 250 GeV, have not been fully excluded yet.
11 April, 2011
Law of Non-Contradiction
I don't necessarily take the position that the Law of Non-Contradiction doesn't hold, but I also don't necessarily accept a common refutation of this position, which involves reductio ad absurdum. That is, when someone says "if the Law of Non-Contradiction doesn't hold, then it does hold, doesn't it?". The reason I don't accept this is two fold:
1) The refutation takes the form of reductio ad absurdum and attempts to use proof by contradiction. Essentially, the contradiction that is presented is that you are both right and wrong at the same time, meaning the argument is reduced to absurdity. However, the emergence of a contradiction does not refute the position that the Law of Non-Contradiction doesn't hold, because the very nature of this position allows for contradictions.
2) In applying proof by contradiction, the refutation already accepts that the law of non-contradiction holds in order to show that it holds. Thus, the argument is circular and so doesn't refute the original position.
I have blogged about this subject before, and am currently in the middle of a conversation about it with John Fraser (JF) on the Premier forums, which I present below the fold. It started by JF sharing this anecdote about his philosophy professor:
JF: My seminary philosophy professor (a student of Plantinga's) had a standard response when some smart-alec in the back would try to dispute the law of non-contradiction (usually with some kind of half-baked appeal to quantum theory like what you guys are doing). He would say, "well, then I'm right, aren't I?" How can you contradict that (having already denied the law of non-contradiction)?
.
.
.
Rhiggs (RH): Perhaps I'm missing something, but can someone please explain why a legitimate answer to John Fraser's oft mentioned philosophy professor can't simply be...
"Well, then you're wrong, aren't you?"
...seeing as the professor, in order to give his response, has accepted the student's proposition that the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold? That is, under the terms that the law doesn't hold, if he's wrong he's actually right (as he states). but it also means that if he's right he's actually wrong. As I see it, the back and forth could go on like this ad infinitum, without actually affiriming either position.
.
.
.
JF: Earth to Rhiggs: the point of the statement is to show that BY THE STUDENT'S OWN STANDARDS he has no way to object that the professor is wrong. Get it? It's not an admission by the professor that the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold!
This is a form of reductio ad absurdum. In a reductio argument, the one making the reductio does not have to accept the conclusion of the argument he is trying to refute - rather, he shows that it leads to an absurdity.
.
.
.
RH: I know that he is not admitting that the law of non-contradiction fails, but in order to show that the student's argument leads to absurdity, he has to show what happens when the law fails. In order to do this, his argument relies on adopting the student's position.
That is, he is really saying, "well, if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, then I'm right, aren't I?". But the student can just turn this back on the professor and say "well, if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, a position you needed to adopt in order to make your point, then you're wrong, aren't you?". The point being that the professor's argument itself is also reduced to absurdity. I'm not saying the student is correct in the first place, but that the professor's response isn't sufficient to refute it.
In addition, the professor is simply showing that if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, then it leads to contradictions, and thus absurdity. But of course it does - that is the very claim! By using the emergence of contradictions, the professor is using the law of non-contradiction to show that the law of non-contradiction holds, which seems circular.
.
.
.
JF: Rhiggs,
That is, he is really saying, "well, if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, then I'm right, aren't I?". But the student can just turn this back on the professor and say "well, if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, a position you needed to adopt in order to make your point, then you're wrong, aren't you?".
Well, he could say those words perhaps. The problem is, in saying this he's saying that the professor is NOT right, but he's already denied the law of non-contradiction. But in saying, "then you're wrong, aren't you?" he would be AFFIRMING the law of non-contradiction - unless he wants to say that the professor is both right and not right about the same point. So actually this would be playing exactly into the trap which the professor has set for him. He can't deny the professor's claim to be right, he could only add another claim, namely that he is not right. And then he can try to affirm that those two propositions are perfectly compatible. But that would be sheer nonsense as even the befuddled student would hopefully be forced to realize.
In addition, the professor is simply showing that if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, then it leads to contradictions, and thus absurdity. But of course it does - that is the very claim! By using the emergence of contradictions, the professor is using the law of non-contradiction to show that the law of non-contradiction holds, which seems circular.
The problem is much deeper than that. It means the law of non-contradiction is necessary even for the student to make any claims about the law of non-contradiction. Note that I'm not saying that this proves the existence of God (a'la presuppositionalism) - just that in denying the law of non-contradiction, you are essentially denying the ability to deny anything. And yes, that is absurd. You might as well say, "I deny the truth claim that says that a truth claim can be denied." It's as self-referentially incoherent as saying that there are no absolute truth - which is itself an absolute truth claim!
.
.
.
RH: Let me be clear here. I'm not agreeing with the student, I'm just disagreeing with the professor's refutation.
But in saying, "then you're wrong, aren't you?" he would be AFFIRMING the law of non-contradiction ...
I don't see how this is so in two different ways. If he says the professor is wrong, then he is denying the law, not affirming it, as the professor's position is that the law holds. Also, he is denying the law by the very act of claiming that the professor's position is both right and wrong at the same time.
...unless he wants to say that the professor is both right and not right about the same point
Which is exactly the point. The student could say this if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold. He could say the same about any statement, even his own. The professor might claim that this reduces the student's argument to absurdity, but in doing so he is relying on proof by contradiction, i.e. it is absurd because you can't be both right and wrong.
This fails for two reasons:
1) Showing the emergence of a contradiction does not refute the student's position, as this is his position, that contradictions are allowed.
2) In applying proof by contradiction, the professor is already accepting that the law of non-contradiction holds in order to show that it holds. His argument is circular and so doesn't refute the student's position.
just that in denying the law of non-contradiction, you are essentially denying the ability to deny anything. And yes, that is absurd.
As I see it, by denying the law of non-contradiction, you are actually allowing for any particular thing to be both denied and affirmed at the same time, not just denied. I agree that it is absurd - in that it is of no apparent practical use to humans - but it is not refuted using the professor's method due to the reasons presented above.
Interesting topic.
.
.
.
JF: Rhiggs,
I don't think you get the point of the refutation. Sure, the student could take the position, "you're both right AND wrong, as am I, because I don't believe the law of non-contradiction holds," but then even as he says this, he is implicitly affirming that the law of non-contradiction DOES hold - otherwise he would not be able to say the law of non-contradiction DOESN'T hold. Get it?
So actually his statement would have to be modified to, "you're right and wrong just as I am right and wrong because the law of non-contradiction both does and does not hold." But hopefully the light will come on at some point and the student will realize that this is all just sheer nonsensical gibberish with no content or truth value whatsoever.
.
.
.
RH:
I don't think you get the point of the refutation.
I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you're right, I don't get it. By the student's standards, if the law doesn't hold, anything that anyone says can mean what they say and the opposite all at once. It's absurd! But I still don't see how it has been refuted. The professor is simply applying the law to refute the denial of the law, and that is just circular.
Sure, the student could take the position, "you're both right AND wrong, as am I, because I don't believe the law of non-contradiction holds," but then even as he says this, he is implicitly affirming that the law of non-contradiction DOES hold - otherwise he would not be able to say the law of non-contradiction DOESN'T hold. Get it?
No. Why does the student, by his own standards, need to implicitly affirm the law in order to deny it?
So actually his statement would have to be modified to, "you're right and wrong just as I am right and wrong because the law of non-contradiction both does and does not hold." But hopefully the light will come on at some point and the student will realize that this is all just sheer nonsensical gibberish with no content or truth value whatsoever.
You say that the student's position is gibberish because of the multiple contradictions that arise, but that still doesn't actually refute the student's position due to my points above about why the professor's refutation is flawed.
Firstly,
- The student's position is that contradictions are allowed
- The professor's refutation is that the student's position leads to a contradiction (you can't be both right and wrong at the same time)
- But this fails, because the student's position is that contradictions are allowed (if the student is right, then he most certainly can be both right and wrong at the same time)
Secondly,
- The student's position is that contradictions are allowed
- The professor's refutation relies on proof by contradiction (reductio ad absurdum), which requires the law of non-contradiction to hold
- Thus, the professor is assuming that the law holds in order to show that the law holds
- The professor's argument is circular and, therefore, is not sufficient to refute the student (pointing out a logical fallacy with the use of another logical fallacy isn't very impressive)
If you can address these two points then I might be convinced.
.
.
.
JF: Rhiggs,
If you can address these two points then I might be convinced.
You're really making me earn my paycheck on this one. Oh, wait, I do this for free. It just feels like a job sometimes.
You want me to address these "two" points - with 3 and 4 subpoints, respectively?
Probably this won't work after everything else I've already said, but basically the problem is this. You keep considering the whole thing from the standpoint that the student's position is that contradictions are allowed. Right? The problem is, as the professor shows, the student's position also leads to the conclusion that contradictions are NOT allowed. So are contradictions allowed or aren't they? You can't just say, "well, that's a contradiction but it doesn't matter because contradictions are allowed," because by his own position contradictions are NOT allowed. You have to apply the rule at the meta-level, not just the sub-level. In other words, you can't just apply the student's rule to everything below the level of the rule itself, because it also has to apply to the rule.
The point of all of this, hopefully, is that the student will see his position leads to a situation which even he doesn't find desirable. That his position amounts to nothing more than meaningless word games and makes it impossible to talk about anything coherently. He could, I suppose, just say, "why talk about anything coherently?" The problem, though, is that in saying that the law of non-contradiction does not obtain, he presumably takes himself to be saying something coherent. If he isn't, then who cares?
.
.
.
RH: As I suspected, you are still simply saying that a contradiction disproves the position that contradictions are allowed. This would be a perfectly acceptable way of disproving most positions, but not this particular one due to the very nature of what is being claimed. Put simply, proof by contradiction cannot be used to prove the law of non-contradiction, or to disprove its negation. In doing so, you are saying nothing more than it's wrong because it's wrong.
So are contradictions allowed or aren't they?
This is where you are going wrong. You can't just decide the answer to this and then subsequently apply it to the problem, because this is the very thing that is being debated. Your approach is completely circular.
You have to apply the rule at the meta-level, not just the sub-level. In other words, you can't just apply the student's rule to everything below the level of the rule itself, because it also has to apply to the rule.
That is exactly what I am doing. I am applying the position that 'contradictions are allowed' to every level in this. If the rule holds, then it both holds and doesn't hold, so any apparent disproof is not a disproof at all, because the position implies that the rule both holds and doesn't hold at the same time, and of course it also doesn't imply that! Call the position nonsense or gibberish or meaningless word games if you like, but that is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the refutation, which I still contend is flawed.
.
.
.
15 December, 2010
Going through the gears
The Antikythera mechanism is the world's oldest known computer (150–100 BC). Various parts of this intricate cog-based instrument were discovered in a shipwreck back in 1900-1901, although the purpose of it, to accurately predict astronomical positions, was not determined until many decades later.
From a recent article in Nature:
Two thousand years ago, a Greek mechanic set out to build a machine that would model the workings of the known Universe. The result was a complex clockwork mechanism that displayed the motions of the Sun, Moon and planets on precisely marked dials. By turning a handle, the creator could watch his tiny celestial bodies trace their undulating paths through the sky.
The mechanic's name is now lost. But his machine, dubbed the Antikythera mechanism, is by far the most technologically sophisticated artefact that survives from antiquity. Since a reconstruction of the device hit the headlines in 2006, it has revolutionized ideas about the technology of the ancient world, and has captured the public imagination as the apparent pinnacle of Greek scientific achievement.
Now, some clever big kids have reconstructed it...
With freakin' LEGO!!
02 November, 2010
Richard Feynman is awesome
I can't believe I've never seen this interview until now. I recommend that anyone with even a passing interest in science (mainly physics and a bit of chemistry and biology) should watch it. It's basically everything you wanted to know about in school, but they never taught.
Heat:
Fire:
Rubber bands:
Magnets:
Electricity:
Mirrors:
Trains:
Waves:
Stars:
Stars 2:
Thinking:
Thinking 2:
01 September, 2010
Infinite regress - sort of
Islands. Lakes. Islands inside lakes. And lakes in them too. And islands in them.
So this is an island in a lake in an island in a lake in an island.....I think.
I wonder if there's a puddle on it?
Anyway, have a look...
26 August, 2010
A paradoxical post
I was reading the Wiki list of paradoxes. Some of them are very clever - and really make you think.
Here are a few of note...
Curry's paradox
If this sentence is true, then there is no God.
If the sentence is true, then what it says is true: namely that "if the sentence is true, then there is no God". Therefore, without necessarily believing that there is no God, or that the sentence is true, it seems we should agree that "if the sentence is true, then there is no God". But then this means the sentence is true. So there is no God. [adapted from the link]
Quite brilliant! Of course, anything can be 'proven' by simply inserting it into the latter half of the sentence, so in reality it is meaningless. I can't quite get my head around it but I expect it's simply due to the limitations of language.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unexpected hanging paradox
A judge tells a condemned prisoner that he will be hanged at noon on one weekday in the following week but that the execution will be a surprise to the prisoner. He will not know the day of the hanging until the executioner knocks on his cell door at noon that day. Having reflected on his sentence, the prisoner draws the conclusion that he will escape from the hanging. His reasoning is in several parts. He begins by concluding that the "surprise hanging" can't be on a Friday, as if he hasn't been hanged by Thursday, there is only one day left - and so it won't be a surprise if he's hanged on a Friday. Since the judge's sentence stipulated that the hanging would be a surprise to him, he concludes it cannot occur on Friday. He then reasons that the surprise hanging cannot be on Thursday either, because Friday has already been eliminated and if he hasn't been hanged by Wednesday night, the hanging must occur on Thursday, making a Thursday hanging not a surprise either. By similar reasoning he concludes that the hanging can also not occur on Wednesday, Tuesday or Monday. Joyfully he retires to his cell confident that the hanging will not occur at all.
It's a funny one. It's clearly wrong, and yet it seems foolproof. I like the end part:
The next week, the executioner knocks on the prisoner's door at noon on Wednesday — which, despite all the above, will still be an utter surprise to him. Everything the judge said has come true.
So it was a surprise after all!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Barber paradox
Suppose there is a town with just one male barber; and that every man in the town keeps himself clean-shaven: some by shaving themselves, some by attending the barber. It seems reasonable to imagine that the barber obeys the following rule: He shaves all and only those men in town who do not shave themselves. Under this scenario, we can ask the following question: Does the barber shave himself? Asking this, however, we discover that the situation presented is in fact impossible:
- If the barber does not shave himself, he must abide by the rule and shave himself.
- If he does shave himself, according to the rule he will not shave himself.
This is, of course, an applied version of Russell's paradox. I actually prefer the library book example:
Imagine a library that has catalogs for each section. It has a catalog for the science section, one for the British literature section, one for American literature, one for history and so on. These catalogs are also books in their own right, so they may also be listed in catalogs. Now it also has a master catalog, which lists all books which do not list themselves. Now the question is, does the master catalog list itself? If it does, then on the premise that it lists those books that do not list themselves, it doesn’t list itself. If it doesn’t list itself, then by the same logic, it does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liar paradox
An oldie but a goodie. The simplest version of the paradox is this:
This statement is false.
If the statement is true, everything asserted in it must be true. However, because the statement asserts that it is itself false, it must be false. So the hypothesis that it is true leads to the contradiction that it is false. Yet the sentence cannot be false for that hypothesis also leads to contradiction. If the statement is false, then what it says about itself is not true. Hence, it is true. Under either hypothesis, the statement is both true and false.
A criticism of the liar paradox is that it is self-referencing. However, a variation exists that does not self-reference:
Card paradox
Suppose there is a card with statements printed on both sides:
Front: The sentence on the other side of this card is TRUE.
Back: The sentence on the other side of this card is FALSE.
Trying to assign a truth value to either of them leads to a paradox.
I presented a similar argument before using newspapers to show that logical contradictions exist. Neither of the sentences employs self-reference; however, this type of paradox does employ circular referencing. This criticism has also been overcome by a variation that does not self-reference or circular-reference:
Yablo's paradox
The paradox arises from considering the following infinite set of sentences:
(S1): for all k > 1, Sk is false
(S2): for all k > 2, Sk is false
(S3): for all k > 3, Sk is false
...
...
The set is paradoxical, because it is unsatisfiable (contradictory), but this unsatisfiability defies immediate intuition. Moreover, none of the sentences refers to itself, but only to the subsequent sentences; this leads Yablo to claim that his paradox does not rely on self-reference. As it continues to infinite, it does not employ circular reference.
Also...
20 August, 2010
God humbled by Rubik's Cube
I suck at Rubik's Cube. Nevertheless, I can solve any possible combination in 20 moves or less.
Yep, that's right.
Well, OK, I can in theory.
Some people over in California did a science and proved that the lowest number of moves in which all possible Rubik's Cube combinations can be solved - the so-called 'God number' - is 20. This loosely means that God is no better than me at Rubik's Cube. He is restricted by the same limitations. Nice to know.
The guys over at Premier are having a wee debate on the implications of this (that God cannot solve all combinations in less moves) if you want to have a look see...
Alternatively...there is always this method:
17 August, 2010
It's a thin line between genius and...
Move back a few metres and look at this photo (or just squint fiercely)...
[Hat tip to Fergus at the Premier forums]
16 August, 2010
Just a test
I've sold my soul and signed up for AdSense. My blog doesn't get a lot of traffic - maybe 30-40 hits a day - so I'm gonna give it a little while and see if it is worth it or not. If it's a negligible amount, I'll just get rid of it.
But hey, if I get a few quid every month, then what harm, eh?
29 July, 2010
Conditioning
Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.
Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.
Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.
After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been done around here.
And that, my friends, is how a company policy begins!!
[This is old, I know, but I like it. I have no idea who the original author is...]
05 July, 2010
I got acupuncture - *facepalm*
About 2-3 years ago, I woke up with a very sore neck. It was agonising when I tried to turn my neck to look to the side.
Owwww!!
Nevertheless, I just carried on with my day, assuming it would eventually go away. Later in the day, I was in the local shopping centre with my girlfriend (now my fiance, w00t!) and the pain was still most certainly there. I needed to do something - fast - so I asked an employee if there were any medical or massage services in the shopping centre.
The only option was a Chinese alternative medicine shop.
Uh oh!
Against my better judgment (I was desperate at this stage) I approached the counter and asked if they do massages, as that was all I wanted. The young Chinese man asked me to explain the problem, which I did, briefly, and he then proceeded to tell me that I needed the 'full treatment' consisting of three parts - skin suction, acupuncture and massage. Acupuncture! Needless to say I declined his advice and explained that all I wanted was a massage.
He accepted my request and took me into the back room where I sat on a bed for a few minutes. Then the 'doctor' came in with the same guy from the counter and they spoke to each other in Chinese for a few minutes. Then, the counter guy told me that the doctor insisted I get the full treatment as it was necessary to treat my specific neck problem. I was very impressed by this diagnosis and treatment decision based purely on the information I had initially told the counter guy - that I woke up with a sore neck!
I actually felt under pressure (you don't disagree with a doctor, now do you?), and when the counter guy offered me a discounted price, against all my principles, I just backed down and agreed to it. Plus, I was somewhat curious to experience acupuncture, despite being skeptical of it. I took off my top and lay on my front, and the doctor placed two plastic objects on my back, one on each shoulder blade, that tightened my skin through a vacuum mechanism (called 'cupping' apparently). This lasted for about 20 minutes.
Next, he stuck needles in my back and neck. About 7 or 8 in total. If he was putting them in precise places, he must have been very good at it, because he put them all in in the space of about 10 seconds and then was gone - for 30 minutes. I lay there on my front and tried to keep still. After about 10 minutes I had to shift slightly as my position wasn't very comfortable. In the process of moving, my neck and back hurt quite a lot. I could feel the needles sticking in and, well, they hurt. I don't know why but I thought acupuncture wouldn't hurt much. Needless (needles!) to say, I wasn't feeling much better at this stage.
The final part of the treatment was a 10 minute neck massage, which is what I actually wanted in the first place. It was pretty poor compared to what you would expect from a professional. My session finished with me feeling a bit underwhelmed.
I got up and was leaving when the counter guy insisted that I buy some 'herbal plasters' to wear on my shoulders. I just wanted to get out of there so I said OK and, conveniently enough, this brought the price back to the original total (before my discount). For the record, it was about €70. Yeah, a rip off. I could have got a 60 minute full body massage for that price.
But the quackery didn't end there. As I was paying, the counter guy recommended that I book my next session now, as I would definitely need a series of sessions to deal with my problem properly - he didn't mention this at the start of course. At this stage, I was getting pissed off with the hard sell, and I just said no and left.
Well, did it work?
I honestly felt no difference straight after. My neck still hurt. Then again, I don't know the time-frame in which acupuncture is supposed to work. A few days later, my neck felt fine. Maybe it worked, or maybe it didn't. Personally, I attribute my recovery to the memory foam pillow I bought shortly after my quackery session - or to the fact that, well, it just went away, like pains often do.
Looking back, I feel scammed. The counter guy was clearly just a good salesman, and I can see why people get drawn in (including me!). The fact that he knew that I needed the 'full treatment' (within seconds of my telling him that my neck was sore) is just ridiculous. Then, when I had explained that I just wanted a massage, he waited until I was in the back room before trying to sell me the 'full treatment' again - this time in front of the doctor, who hadn't examined me at all but amazingly also knew that I needed the works. Then he pushed the add-on impulse sale at the end, and even went for the continuation sale. Luckily, I didn't fall for the latter, but I can see why others might if they truly believe that their treatment won't work unless they book another few sessions.
All in all, I actually don't regret it, because it was a valuable (yet expensive!) lesson to never go against my instincts again - at least not where pseudoscience is involved.
10 June, 2010
Nelson Mandela, the Dalai Lama, and me...
This site graphs your political position on the basis of your answers a mix of economic, social and philosophical questions.
Here's my graph:
Turns out I'm a big libertarian socialist head! Who knew?!
I've no idea how accurate it is but the names in the title are apparently of a similar political persuasion to me. I'm also hanging out with Gandhi, George Orwell and Noam Chomsky, but turns out someone invited Michael Moore to the party too. Hmmm...
For interest, here is how the Irish political parties position on the graph:
And the 2008 US presidential candidates:
(click on the graphs for improved clarity)
17 March, 2010
Why is there something instead of nothing?
Atheists are often derided for supposedly believing that something came from nothing. The most notorious proponent of this is probably Ray Comfort, who for someone that spends so much time talking about atheists actually knows very little about them.
Here's what I think...
Why do birds exist? Why do trees exist? Why does MacDonalds exist? Why does Leitrim exist?
Let's get to the main question - why does anything exist?
It's a great question. You could literally think about it for ever and never really answer it. But I personally think it's a flawed question.
Why?
Well, some people seem to think that nothing is more natural than something. That prior to reality as we know it existing, there was nothing. Then at some stage something appeared, somehow.
I suppose I can understand why some people think like this. But why is nothingness the default position? Why does nothingness seem more likely than somethingness?
It should really be the other way around.
What experience do we have of the two options? We certainly have no experience of nothingness. So it doesn't make sense to assume that nothingness ever existed (so to speak). On the other hand, we have extensive experience of somethingness, and yet it is assumed that this is the more unlikely of the two. Strange.
Furthermore, what is nothingness? I mean, it's easy to describe - it's literally nothing. But what is it? You can't conceive of it because whatever you imagine it to be is automatically something! Even if you imagine a great empty void, that is still something, just an empty something.
So as far as our limited human minds can comprehend, nothingness actually seems impossible. Now of course it may be that nothingness is actually possible, but we just can't comprehend it. But this is hardly solid ground to assume that nothingness did exist (so to speak), or even that it is more likely than somethingness.
Obviously this has been pondered by minds far greater than mine, but I haven't read much about it, so for what it's worth I'm saying that somethingness, i.e. reality as we know it or not, has always existed. This is strange, I know. But in my opinion, for the reasons given above, it is far more strange to think that at some stage there was literally nothing.
So with his definition, Comfort is wrong.
This should mean something.
But Comfort is often wrong, so it means nothing.
03 November, 2009
Size Matters
Checkout this page from the University of Utah website. It compares the size of various items, starting with a coffee bean, ending up with microscopic items, such as an E. coli bacterium, an antibody and even a carbon atom.
11 May, 2009
The Dan Brown Code
Wanna know how to write a best seller and guarantee a movie deal?
Easy. Use the Dan Brown code:
Ageing Harvard professor
+ Attractive young female
- Murdered father who is brilliant scientist
+ European city
+ Famous landmarks
+ Trail of clues
+ Catholic church (great for pre-release controversy)
+ Secret society
+ Ruthless assassin working for mystery employers
- Loyalty from said mystery employers
+ Knowledgeable old disabled man
+ Race against time
+ Irrelevant romantic ending
= Cha-ching!! Several hundred million dollar profit
Class dismissed.
01 May, 2009
Stupid Goddam Blasphemy Law
This is beyond ridiculous.
Dermot Ahern and the rest of the Fianna Fail bozos are actually considering bringing in a blasphemy law. If it's passed, a fine of up to €100,000 will be imposed on blasphemers.
This can't possibly be happening, can it? I mean, Jaysus, like, what's the problem...?
21 April, 2009
Get well soon Prof Hawking
Good news. His condition is improving.
Actually wait....why do people always say 'Get Well Soon'? Its like saying 'Yeah I want your condition to improve, but not just yet...'
Screw that.......
Prof Hawking, I hope you get well right now!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
