Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
Agreed both ITN and Perry have socks, I doubt they are the same person. Just people with a similar mental condition.
Where do the mathematical laws of physics come from?
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
God, you are dumber than a pile of rocks.
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
Why are you insulting a pile of rocks? LOL
I saw a debate with Richard Dawkins in which he grudgingly said that he might could possibly be convinced of deism or a sort of God of Spinoza. That's a grudging recognition from him that the immanent rational mathmatical intelligibility of the universe requires an explanation which science cannot provide
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
Dawkins has always been weak on the "pure atheist" idea even though he constantly pushes the idea. Even on his own 7-point he only claims a 6 rather than the logical 4.
Dawkins Scale
dawkins.netlify.app
Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia
I think it's just a fact that strident militant atheism sells better $$, and as a writer of books he knows this - even if he personally and grudgingly acknowledges the possibility of some sort of deistic god.Dawkins has always been weak on the "pure atheist" idea even though he constantly pushes the idea. Even on his own 7-point he only claims a 6 rather than the logical 4.
Dawkins Scale
In print, Dawkins self-identified as a "6". When interviewed by Bill Maher and later by Anthony Kenny, he suggested "6.9" to be more accurate.Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
It's a niche market. The Bible market is swamped and Dawkins appears to have found an untapped niche.
He's a biology professor now worth about $10M due to his books and lectures on atheism, not biology. While he's written a few books on genetics, his biggest sellers are the atheist books with "The God Delusion" being his biggest seller.
Richard Dawkins Net Worth | TheRichest
The latest and exclusive Richard Dawkins Net Worth coverage from TheRichest.
www.therichest.com
A biology professor probably only makes around $150K a year at Cambridge University. You are correct, he made his millions tapping into the militant atheist market. That is where the real enthusiasm and militancy is, as Lenin and Robespierre learned and were aware.It's a niche market. The Bible market is swamped and Dawkins appears to have found an untapped niche.
He's a biology professor now worth about $10M due to his books and lectures on atheism, not biology. While he's written a few books on genetics, his biggest sellers are the atheist books with "The God Delusion" being his biggest seller.
Richard Dawkins is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and author who has an estimated net worth of $10 million. He earned his fortune from book sales, science career, as well as television and film appearances.Richard Dawkins Net Worth | TheRichest
The latest and exclusive Richard Dawkins Net Worth coverage from TheRichest.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I honestly don't understand why theorist types keep looking for alternatives to linear thinking.
I'm not saying that it can't ever result in useful perspectives,
but they're not immediately useful to a whole lot of us.
People are already accepting the "Big Bang" as a given,
but to me, at least, its likelihood of being more on the mark than
pull-it-out-of-your-ass Creationism hasn't been made very clear yet.
The fact that I personally don't care about the origin of physical matter
certainly doesn't mean that it's not a subject work considering.
Anything about which we're curious is worth thought.
It seems to me, however, that in order to ponder it,
most theorists have to create new paradigms of thought processes and measurements
because none of the proven ones yield satisfying answers.
I guess my mind works on a more primitive level.
The advent of matter has already occurred.
What can we get out of it to make a human life experience a bit more tolerable?
I'm not saying that it can't ever result in useful perspectives,
but they're not immediately useful to a whole lot of us.
People are already accepting the "Big Bang" as a given,
but to me, at least, its likelihood of being more on the mark than
pull-it-out-of-your-ass Creationism hasn't been made very clear yet.
The fact that I personally don't care about the origin of physical matter
certainly doesn't mean that it's not a subject work considering.
Anything about which we're curious is worth thought.
It seems to me, however, that in order to ponder it,
most theorists have to create new paradigms of thought processes and measurements
because none of the proven ones yield satisfying answers.
I guess my mind works on a more primitive level.
The advent of matter has already occurred.
What can we get out of it to make a human life experience a bit more tolerable?
Almost nothing in nature is linear in a mathematical sense. Nature is usually non-linear and non-normally distributed.
The Big Bang in a very real sense is not an explantion for the origin of anything. It is just a description for how the universe evolved from an initial state we still don't understand.
I think the big questions of cosmology are perfectly understandable to anyone of any education level. I don't have a degree in cosmology myself.
Yes, obviously engineering and technology to improve the human condition is way more important than any of these speculations about the origin of time and space. I just don't have very much intelligent to say about mechanical engineering or medical technology.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I'm confident that all intellectual curiosity is a positive thing in the human experience, beginning with little boys and little girls saying "I'll show you mine if you show me yours."
It just manifests itself differently in different people.
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
Not a mathematician, but not following why you think nature doesn't follow logic. The physics of the Universe follows a predictable path. Life is the variable. As Darwin pointed out, most life can be predicted as to path. Our "free will" discussions, no matter how limited the choices, demonstrates another variable.
Agreed on the Big Bang. It's the beginning of our Universe, not an explanation of how it came to be.
Agreed. Neither do I nor, I suspect, @NiftyNiblick. We can all have uninformed opinions about the nature of the universe, but what I consider most important is the attitude of the person giving it.
Technology has been a boon to human beings. Yes, it presents new problems, but even though it is strange and new, it's solved more problems than it causes.
I just meant nature is rational, just not necessarily linear.
E = mc² is not linear, it's exponential. The gravitational force falls off as the inverse square of the distance between masses, aka non-linearly. Most of the mathematical and probability distributions of nature, time, and space are exponential, logarithmic, non-Euclidean, or non-normal. Euclid and Newton could not perceive that time and space were not necessarily simple, uniform linear constructs. Time and space followed non-linear and non-Euclidean distributions and topologies. Getting out of the mode of linear and Euclidian thinking was part of the brilliance of Einstein.
I think our brains evolved to think and expect linear regularity, which is why 11th grade geometry was fairly intuitive, but that is not the way nature works at its deepest level.
Agree with everything else you wrote.
Last edited:
Into the Night
Verified User
DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE, SYBIL!
Into the Night
Verified User
Every single theory in physics as an origin, Sybil. The author and history of each theory is well known.
Into the Night
Verified User
Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, Sybil.
Into the Night
Verified User
DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE, SYBIL!