Fuzzy fucking maths? Its only the laws of physics honey. I don't wish to disrespect others personal experience, but I knew a guy who had lots of personal experience of not having accidents, despite his speed and somewhat reckless driving...until he had an accident. The good news is he won't be having anymore accidents. The bad news is he won't be having anymore anything.

There is a reason you are advised to keep a good distance between you and the vehicle in front, its not just some random theorycrafting. If you rly don't trust the numbers then I suggest you hop on your bike, find a truck to coast behind and wait. Remember to video it and link me to the result. Oh, and try not to die, I don't think videosift will let me post snuff.

I'll direct you to his own words. Here is Kraus talking about redefining what the word nothing means:

"And I guess most importantly that the question why is there something rather than nothing is really a scientific question, not a religious or philosophical question, because both nothing and something are scientific concepts, and our discoveries over the past 30 years have completely changed what we mean by nothing.

In particular, nothing is unstable. Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and it's - it's fascinatingly interesting. And what I wanted to do was use the hook of this question, which I think as I say has provoked religious people, as well as scientists, to encourage people to try and understand the amazing universe that we actually live in."

Here is Krauss describing how empty space could create the Universe:

Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time scale so short that you can't even measure them. Now, that sounds of course like counting angels on the head of a pin; if you can't measure them, then it doesn't sound like it's science, but in fact you can't measure them directly.

But we can measure their effects indirectly. These particles that are popping in and out of existence actually affect the properties of atoms and nuclei and actually are responsible for most of the mass inside your body. And in fact, really one of the things that motivated this book was the most profound discovery in recent times, and you even alluded to it in the last segment, the discovery that most of the energy of the universe actually resides in empty space.

You take space, get rid of all the particles, all the radiation, and it actually carries energy, and that notion that in fact empty space - once you allow gravity into the game, what seems impossible is possible. It sounds like it would violate the conservation of energy for you to start with nothing and end up with lots of stuff, but the great thing about gravity is it's a little trickier.

Gravity allows positive energy and negative energy, and out of nothing you can create positive energy particles, and as long as a gravitational attraction produces enough negative energy, the sum of their energy can be zero. And in fact when we look out at the universe and try and measure its total energy, we come up with zero.

I like to think of it as the difference between, say, a savvy stockbroker and an embezzler. The savvy stockbroker will buy stocks on margin with more money than they have, and as long as they get that money back in there before anyone notices, and in fact if the stocks go up, they end with money where they didn't have any before, whereas the embezzler, of course, is discovered.

Well, the universe is a savvy stockbroker. It can borrow energy, and if there's no gravity, it gets rid of it back before anyone notices. But if gravity is there, it can actually create stuff where there was none before. And you can actually create enough stuff to account for everything we see in the universe.

But, you know, it's more than that because some people would say, and I've had this discussion with theologians and others, well, you know, just empty space isn't nothing. You know, there's space. How did the space get there? But the amazing thing is, once you apply in fact quantum mechanics to gravity, as you were beginning to allude again in the last segment, then it's possible, in fact it's implied, that space itself can be created where there was nothing before, that literally whole universes can pop out of nothing by the laws of quantum mechanics.

And in fact the question why is there something rather than nothing then becomes sort of trite because nothing is unstable. It will always produce something. The more interesting or surprising question might be why is there nothing. But of course if we ask that question, well, we wouldn't be here if that was true.

-----------------------------------------

What he said in this video is completely misleading; I'll show you his slight of hand. When he says you can take away everything, even the laws and still get a Universe, he has redefined "absolutely nothing" as a complete absence of this Universe, but not as we will see, a complete absence of anything. To explain the laws of quantum mechanics popping into existence, he postulates an external entity: the multiverse:

Well, you know, that's something I deal with at the end of the book because, you know, it's not a concept that I'm pretty fond of, but it - we seemed to be driven there by our theories, and it does suggest the last bit, because some people, indeed when I debate this question of nothing, they say, well, look, you can get rid of space. You can get rid of stuff in space, the first kind of nothing. You can even get rid of space, but you still have the laws. Who created the laws?

Well, it turns out that we've been driven both from ideas from cosmology - from a theory called inflation or even string theory - that suggests there may be extra dimensions - to the possibility that our universe isn't unique, and more over, that the laws of physics in our universe may just be accidental. They may have arisen spontaneously, and they don't have to be the way they are. But if they were any different, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. It's called the entropic idea, and it's not - it's - it may be right.

It's not an idea I find very attractive, but it may be right. And if it is, then it suggests that even the very laws themselves are not fundamental. They arose spontaneously in our universe, and they're very different in other universes. And in some sense, if you wish, the multiverse plays the role of what you might call a prime mover or a god. It exists outside of our universe.

So, again, the question is not answered. In his book, some chapters of his book are: "Nothing is something" and "Nothing is unstable". He has redefined nothing as empty space or a quantum vaccum, and when pressed, he offers up a multiverse, but fails to explain where the multiverse came from. Nothing is not something, it is not unstable, it is not empty space, it is not a quantum vacuum, and it is not a multiverse. Nothing is nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. It has no states, no properties, no existence. He has not explained how something came from nothing. All he has done is redefine nothing into something. Of course something can come from something. All he doing is playing a masquarade with definitions





>> ^xxovercastxx:
16:08-16:38

"...you could start with absolutely nothing; that means, unlike the Cardinal said and unlike some people argue, no particles, but not even empty space -- no space whatsoever, and maybe even no laws governing that space and we can plausibly understand how you could arrive, without any miracles, without any need for a creator, without any supernatural creation, you could produce everything we see."

This kid has a pretty good understanding of the laws of physics. His assessment of every step is more impressive than the actual physical effort. My $.02...

@shinyblurry But I found the real struggle was to objectively define truth. Any foundational truth, really. What is beauty? What is altruism? What is truth itself? 7 billion subjective perspectives does not equal one objective one.

Well, as you say, our understanding is limited, and we may neveer truly figure it out, but from my pespective, if anything could ever be seen as objectively true, that would have to be science. Compare science to religion, there are thousands of religions, all claiming to see some deeper truth in the universe, but there is just one science. There is no such thing as "Japanese science" or "American Science" or "Middle eastern science" The first law of thermodynamics isnt different in Germany og Guatamala, and if we ever make contact with an alien race on the other side of the universe capable of science, they will have discovered the same law. Theyll also discover that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light squared and so forth. Compare that to religion: As soon as two tribes are separated by a mountain or a lake, their religious "truths" will start to diverge.

Or, maybe we're wrong, maybe, despite being independently confirmed over and over in different parts of the world and even in the farthest stretches of the universe, the laws of physics and logically sound facts derived from science is all wrong, maybe there is some other, unknown objective truth waiting to be discovered. Still one thing seems glaringly obvious: Christianity seems to be as far from an objective truth as one can get. Even Christians can't agree on it. There are something like 30 thousand recognized branches of Christianity, and when taken at the level of an individual, the picture is even worse. Almost every christian seems to have a different idea about whats really true about Christianity.

So, if I had to hedge my bets on how we can find objective truths: Science.

>> ^lampishthing:

I think that's the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism.
Atheism: belief that there is (are) no God(s).
Agnostic: lack of belief either way.
"Gnostic" is derived from a Greek word meaning knowing (roughly speaking). Theism and Atheism are Gnostic philosophies as they claim to know that there is a God or not. Agnostic is the inverse: not knowing.

Actually you have that wrong. Atheism is not the belief that there are no gods, it's the lack of belief in a god. It's a small but important point. Agnosticism (as you pointed out) is related to knowledge.

Most "atheists" are agnostics atheists, they don't know if there's a good, but they have seen no evidence for one therefore have no reason to believe in one. Very few atheists (even the "hardcore" like Dawkins) will say they know there's no god, simply that it is extremely improbable.

Theists can fall into either camp. There are many agnostic theists, who can't say for sure that there is a good but choose to believe anyway. People like @shinyblurry would claim to be gnostic theists, in that they claim to know there is a god, and consequently believe.

To me, gnosticism (either theistic or atheistic) is an intellectually dishonest position. There is no real evidence (and personal experience doesn't count, I'm afraid) for this existence of god, but by it's very definition an omnipotent being outside the laws of physics could hide his existence from the universe so it's impossible to disprove using science.

Finally, there is one more position that hasn't been mentioned. It's the third axis on the graph. So far, we have belief (considered opinion based on evidence) and knowledge (evidence available), but there is also desire; whether you want god to exist or not. I don't know the positive term for this, but the negative is usually called an "anti-theist", and can be applied to the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. This is the idea that not only does god probably not exist, it is a good thing that it doesn't. Atheists do not necessarily fall into this camp. Many feel that a benevolent deity would be a nice thing, much like it'd be nice if Santa or the easter bunny existed, but there's simply insufficient evidence for it. Note that anti-theists don't hate theists (other than the ones that any moral person would hate: bigots, child-molesters and so on), they hate the concept of god.

It's even possible to be a theist antitheist ("god's a prick, but he's a powerful prick so I should really obey him") although I'll haven't met any of them. Fictional example would be Riddick

For the record, I am an agnostic atheist anti-theist. I don't know if there's a god, I find it improbable and if he's anything like he's depicted in any of the major religions, I want no part of him.

You quote The Blind Watchmaker and The Origin of Species but I highly doubt that you’ve read them yourself. If you haven’t then you’re not better than someone who is contesting the bible without having read it. You quote a LOT of scientists that you say are hostile to your position but again, have you actually read the works that you’re quoting from in their entirety? I doubt it.

Well, I have read them and I think it's fairly obvious that I understand the subject matter.

Here are just two things that I read recently that I think are worth repeating:

...degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR (Institute for Creation Research)...

....illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors. Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics....

I never made the argument that entropy can never decrease in a system. I made the argument that even if you want to use the energy of the sun to explain why life is becoming more complex, you haven't explained the information that makes that possible. More energy does not equal more order. I also don't know why you keep bringing up articles from the institution of creation research and expect me to defend them. I am more than willing to admit that there are some terrible theories by creationists out there, just as there are terrible theories by secular scientists.

For myself, I am only a materialist because there isn’t any demonstrable, non-anecdotal, reproducible evidence for the existence of anything non-material. I hope you can understand that. There is the appearance of design and there is DNA, and we don’t know how everything got started but that’s not good enough for me to believe that it was designed, I need something more concrete because that is the criteria for which I will justify something as believable. I’d be very interested in some sort of evidence like that but it hasn’t happened yet and conjecture just doesn’t work for me so I’ll reserve judgment but maintain doubt and that’s all there is to it.

I can understand your position as a materialist, having formally been one. I did not see any evidence for God or spirit either, and it really rocked my world to discover that there was more, and that material reality is only a veil to a larger reality. It is mind blowing to discover that everything that you know is in some way, wrong.

I think there is some very good evidence pointing towards a Creator, but that isn't going to get you there necessarily. It seems to me though, after talking with you a bit, that if there is a God, you would want to know about it. Maybe you're not terribly interested in pursuing the subject at the moment but you now strike me as someone who is open to the truth. If He does exist, would you want to hear from Him? If He let you know, would you follow Him?

On the scope of evidence, I think the two of the most powerful arguments are the information in DNA and the fine-tuning of physical laws. There is no naturalistic process which can produce a code, and that is what DNA is. It is a digital code which stores information and is vastly superior to anything we have ever designed. It is a genetic language which has its own alphabet, grammar, syntax, and meaning. It has redudancy and error correction, and it is an encoding and decoding mechanism to transmit information about an organism. Biologists actually use linguistic analysis to decode its functions. You also have to realize that the message is not the medium. In that, like all information, you can copy the information in DNA to storage device like a hard drive, and then recode it later with no loss in information. This is a pretty good article on the information in DNA:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/language-dna-intelligent-design/

The fine tuning evidence is also very powerfully because it is virtually impossible for the laws to have come about by chance. It's important to understand what fine tuning actually means. I'll quote Dr Craig:

"That the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life is a pretty solidly established fact and ought not to be a subject of controversy. By “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist."

So it's not a question whether the Universe itself is finely tuned for life, it is a question of how it got that way. In actuality, the odds of it happening are far worse than winning the powerball lottery over 100 times in a row. Random chance simply cannot account for it because there are dozens of values that must be precisely calibrated, and the odds for some of these values happening by chance is greater than the number of particles in the Universe! For instance, the space-energy density must be fine tuned to one part in 10 to the 120th power, an inconceivably huge number. That's just one value out of dozens. Many scientists understand this.

Here are some quotes from some agnostic scientists, which a couple of Christians thrown in:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Just because the universe and life might have the appearance of design doesn’t mean it was designed. After all, we might all be brains in vats being experimented on by hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings and all of this is simply like the matrix. Maybe Déjà vu is evidence that it’s true but there simply isn’t any reason to believe it just like there isn’t any reason to believe in any gods.

But if that were true then the Universe is designed, and this is simply some kind of computer program. In any case, although we could imagine many scenerios I am talking about something very specific; That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He rose from the dead. Moreover, that you can know Him personally, today.

All of the concepts of god and gods have been moved back every time we discover naturalistic explanations where once those gods were accredited. What makes you think that it’s any different with these things? Just because we don’t know what’s behind the veil doesn’t mean that the idea of someone pulling the levers is a better explanation than a currently unknown natural, non-agency explanation. If we don’t know, then we don’t know and putting a god in the place of “we don’t know” isn't a good way of helping us learn more about our universe

The primary question is whether the Universe has an intelligent causation. You believe that Universes, especially precisely calibrated and well-ordered ones just happen by themselves. I happen to think that this is implausible to say the least. You're acting like it's not a valid question, and because we can describe some of the mechanisms we see that we can rule out an intelligent cause, which is simply untrue. You could describe every single mechanism there is in the Universe, but until you explain how it got here, you haven't explained anything. The real question is not how they work but why they work and that question can only be answered by answering why they exist in the first place.

It is also just a fallacy to say that because some peoples beliefs about God have been proven false, that means all beliefs about God are false. Scientists used to believe that there were only seven planets and that the Earth was flat. Does that mean that all ideas scientists have are false? No, and neither does it mean that all beliefs about God are false because people have had ridiculous beliefs about God.

The God I believe in is not ridiculous, and the belief in His existence has led to ideas that formed western civilization and propelled modern science itself. The idea that we can suss out Universal laws by investigating secondary causes is a Christian one, that came from the belief that God created an orderly Universe based on laws.

It is also not a brake to doing science to believe that God created the Universe. Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in God. People like Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Max Planck, Mendel and Einstein. It certainly didn't stop them from doing great science.

Also, as I have explained, it is not a God of the gaps argument when God is a better explanation for the evidence.

We know that the universe, space-time, matter had a finite beginning but we can’t say anything at all about that beginning with any certainty. We can’t even say that whatever was that caused the universe is spaceless, or timeless. We just don’t know. This is the god of the gaps argument that started this whole thing. You’re putting a god in as the explanation for what is effectively a gap in our knowledge without anything solid to go off of. It would not be a god of the gaps argument if we eventually could know with a high degree of certainty that there is a god there fiddling with the controls but we don’t. That is the crux of this whole debate. That is why “I don’t know” is a better answer than “A god did it” because it’s absolutely verifiably true where as a god is not.

The ultimate cause of the Universe must be timeless because it must be beginningless, according to logic. I'll explain. You cannot get something from nothing, I think we both agree on that. So if the Universe has a cause, it must be an eternal cause, since you cannot have an infinite regress of causes for the Universe. The buck has to stop somewhere. This points to an eternal first cause, which means that cause is timeless. If it is timeless it is also changeless because change is a property of time. If it is changeless it is also spaceless, because anything which exists in space must be temporal, since it is always finitely changing relation to the things around it. It's timelessness and spacelessness makes it immaterial, and this also makes it transcendent. I think it is obvious that whatever created the Universe must be unimaginably powerful. So we have something which already closely describes the God of the bible, and we can deduct these things by using logic alone.

We just don’t know if the universe is entirely regressable into some sort of endless loop which folds in on itself, or something else, or even if there is a god or not. Furthermore, I hope you look into what physicist mean by “out of nothing” because it doesn’t mean what I think you think it means. It took me a while to understand what it meant and to be honest, it is a bit of a deceptive word play but it’s only that way because there isn’t another way to describe it. I don't actually believe that the universe came from "nothing". I don't know how it all started, so therefore, I have no belief. I don't need an answer to the big questions. I can say "I don't know" just fine and leave it at that.

“A proponent of the Big Bang Theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing.” Anthony Kenny

British physicist P.C.W. Davies writes, “The coming-into-being of the universe as discussed in modern science…is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization or structure upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.”

Physicist Victor Stenger says “the universe exploded out of nothingness the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. its then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

I think we can both agree that it is better to know than not to know. That's been one of your primary arguments against the existence of God, that we simply cannot rest of the laurels of God being the Creator because that will lead to ignorance. I have already demonstrated that there is no actual conflict with belief in God and doing good science, so your argument is invalid, but I think it's ironic that on the other side of it, you are arguing that ignorance is a good thing and leads to better science. That you're even intellectually satisified with not knowing. I hope you can see the contradiction here.

The reason why I personally don’t find the whole god argument all that interesting, and the reason why I don’t actually care about it, is because it makes a heck of a lot of claims regarding the nature of god and it’s properties which just can’t be verified. There is nothing that we can concretely discover about god and no predictions that we can make which could eventually be verified meaningfully. How can we possibly know if creator is timeless, or spaceless, unimaginably powerful, transcendent, unembodied, etc? Is it rational to believe that; do you have an equal ratio of evidence to belief? What predictions can we actually make about this god(s). All we have are books and stories written and passed down throughout history. Everything else is just unjustified belief to me.

As I explained above, we can make several predictions about God based on the evidence. Belief in God is rational and can be justified. However, I understand that until you have a personal experience, it is probably going to be unconvincing to you, since this is way you see the world. You demand evidence, and lucky for you, God provides evidence. If you asked Him to come into your life, He would demonstrate it to you. He provided evidence to me, and I know you He will provide to you, especially if you take a leap of faith ask Him for it.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

>> ^marinara:

Quick! we mush pass PIPA, SOPA or there will never be another CALL OF DUTY game!

<sarcasm>Yeah, that's exactly what I said. </sarcasm>

Basic comprehension has never been your strong point, has it?

>> ^gorillaman:


Piracy is totally acceptable. Intellectual property is logically and morally absurd. Patents - claiming you personally own a slice of the universal laws of physics - are particularly obnoxious; copyright - claiming you personally own access to a string of information, which nobody else is allowed to know without your permission - is usually only something silly that gets in the way of discourse. Merely silly, that is, until people (yes people, I hold each of them individually responsible) send their stormtroopers to attack the innocent just to keep themselves in business.
Mass media always costs more money to produce than it's actually worth. No movie or game, however many millions are spent in its creation, is worth more than the price of a single unit. When producers invest all this cash they're relying on the miracle of media duplication to get paid. That single unit can be copied and sold again and again and again, to thousands or millions of people, multiplying itself and its value. Often they're able to sell their one little media fragment enough times to make a profit - good for them, the bet paid off. To then turn around and complain when others take advantage of that same miracle to enrich their lives is not only a textbook example of biting the hand that feeds you, it's also deliberately obstructing a process that makes the world better, which is a monstrous crime.
These people don't 'deserve' compensation. They're gambling. Whether gamblers make their living gambling or not, they don't 'deserve' to win and it's nobody else's responsibility to ensure that they do.
This is an extremely simple issue.


Wow, I really don't even know where to start with how ridiculous that is. Intellectual property is not "logically and morally absurd". It is the result of peoples time and effort, and thus, has value. This is not about rewarding a studio who invests hundreds of millions in a game or movie, it's about paying a programmer, artist or hell, even the guy who gets coffee for the director.

As for the "gambling" argument, I have no problem with people with make bad products failing. That's fine. But you seem to believe that someone could put years of work into a great product and then still receive no compensation for it. Fine, but then why should you expect them to continue to put that effort into their work? Yeah, love of the craft, whatever, but people still need to eat, pay bills, etc.

You know what? pay the fucking writer.

>> ^ChaosEngine:
You don't think you're oversimplifying the issue just a bit? Or more likely, by an order of magnitude?
Games, moveis, music; all these cost money to produce. You don't think that the people (yes, people, not big faceless corporations) involved deserve to be compensated for their efforts?
People harp on about "a broken business model", but I've yet to see someone come up with a working alternative. Yes, treating your paying customers worse than pirates is not the right answer, but that doesn't make piracy any more morally acceptable.


Piracy is totally acceptable. Intellectual property is logically and morally absurd. Patents - claiming you personally own a slice of the universal laws of physics - are particularly obnoxious; copyright - claiming you personally own access to a string of information, which nobody else is allowed to know without your permission - is usually only something silly that gets in the way of discourse. Merely silly, that is, until people (yes people, I hold each of them individually responsible) send their stormtroopers to attack the innocent just to keep themselves in business.

Mass media always costs more money to produce than it's actually worth. No movie or game, however many millions are spent in its creation, is worth more than the price of a single unit. When producers invest all this cash they're relying on the miracle of media duplication to get paid. That single unit can be copied and sold again and again and again, to thousands or millions of people, multiplying itself and its value. Often they're able to sell their one little media fragment enough times to make a profit - good for them, the bet paid off. To then turn around and complain when others take advantage of that same miracle to enrich their lives is not only a textbook example of biting the hand that feeds you, it's also deliberately obstructing a process that makes the world better, which is a monstrous crime.

These people don't 'deserve' compensation. They're gambling. Whether gamblers make their living gambling or not, they don't 'deserve' to win and it's nobody else's responsibility to ensure that they do.

This is an extremely simple issue.

@Unaccommodated

Humans are no longer a part of the competitive 'survive and procreate' gene-war that is the natural world, or at least we're in the process of struggling our way out of that tangle. Very soon, our evolution will be defined by wholly non-naturalistic parameters.

We are not starving. Nothing is going to eat us. Our decisions are not made purely by instinctual drives. Of course it's usually accurate to say that we're still subject to the laws of physics and their emergent systems; it ought to be obvious contextually that's not the nature I'm suggesting we have surpassed.

Your appeals to natural law are inapplicable to human endeavour.

At the most fundamental level of our existence, more fundamental even than physical law, we are individual consciousnesses possessing a general intelligence - inherited, admittedly, from an evolutionary heritage that is no longer relevant; from which we should always strive to divorce ourselves.

Marriage is ultimately whatever we want it to be. One thing I do not want it to be is a state-driven instrument of social conformity.

What do you think the 'laws' of logic are?

That's what I am asking you. What are they?

If the material universe is so inconsistent, then why are the laws of physics consistent, and for that matter all scientific observations?

Again, that's what I am asking you. Without a controlling influence, there is no basis for these absolute
laws. I can account for it, how do you account for it?

In what way do you think the universe is changing? Certainly it's progressing in a sensible linear fashion, as dictated by physics and such. Your usage of the term seems to imply that gravity works one day and does not the next. How is anything inconsistent?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_universe

What are you comparing nature to, when you say it's "uniform" the question makes no sense at all. Things can be uniform, or irregular when compared to other things. What are you comparing nature to when you make the judgment that it is uniform? The question cannot be answered because it is based on a false premise.

It is the fundemental assumption of science that nature is uniform. That water will always boil at a certain temperature and atmosphere, every single time. Without that assumption, science couldn't be done.

I don't know the future will be like the past, but given that the laws of physics have remained constant for my life, and to the best of my knowledge all of recorded history, and that observation leads me and scientists to conclude that it was always thus (except, perhaps prior to the big bang) it would be silly to assume things would suddenly change. About as silly as believing in something with no evidence for its existence.

Right, so since you don't know that for sure, there is no reason to believe that empirical testing is the best method for obtaining truth. You've just admitted that you cannot account for it without begging the question, so your stance is not based on evidence but viciously circular reasoning.

>> ^Drachen_Jager

>> ^shinyblurry:

They're very simple questions. How do you account for the laws of logic, which are immaterial, unchanging and absolute, in a material universe which is always changing?
How do you account for the uniformity in nature? How do you know the future will be like the past?

Look, the questions are all fundamentally flawed. Let me spell it out.

What do you think the 'laws' of logic are? If the material universe is so inconsistent, then why are the laws of physics consistent, and for that matter all scientific observations? In what way do you think the universe is changing? Certainly it's progressing in a sensible linear fashion, as dictated by physics and such. Your usage of the term seems to imply that gravity works one day and does not the next. How is anything inconsistent?

What are you comparing nature to, when you say it's "uniform" the question makes no sense at all. Things can be uniform, or irregular when compared to other things. What are you comparing nature to when you make the judgment that it is uniform? The question cannot be answered because it is based on a false premise.

I don't know the future will be like the past, but given that the laws of physics have remained constant for my life, and to the best of my knowledge all of recorded history, and that observation leads me and scientists to conclude that it was always thus (except, perhaps prior to the big bang) it would be silly to assume things would suddenly change. About as silly as believing in something with no evidence for its existence.

>> ^budzos:

They're not actually moving that fast (there is no spoon). There are no laws of physics for them to violate.
>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
While that was an awesome scene and pretty revolutionary for it's time, I always thought that given you've just seen the agent has reflexes quick enough to dodge bullets, wouldn't saying "dodge this" give it more than enough time to take the gun off Trinity?
I know, rule of cool and all, but still..

Lets go even farther and take into account inertia and momentum etc. If the agent and neo can move that fast shouldn't they be subject to some form of physical law that says if you move fast enough to become a blur your energy should be dissipated in some form ?
The whole thing is full of odd holes, but all in all its a neat movie.




INDEED !

They're not actually moving that fast (there is no spoon). There are no laws of physics for them to violate.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
While that was an awesome scene and pretty revolutionary for it's time, I always thought that given you've just seen the agent has reflexes quick enough to dodge bullets, wouldn't saying "dodge this" give it more than enough time to take the gun off Trinity?
I know, rule of cool and all, but still..

Lets go even farther and take into account inertia and momentum etc. If the agent and neo can move that fast shouldn't they be subject to some form of physical law that says if you move fast enough to become a blur your energy should be dissipated in some form ?
The whole thing is full of odd holes, but all in all its a neat movie.

ah yes, aerodynamics and the laws of physics are not science. the wind picking up hundred of pounds without mechanical power is not science. Good call.




Not.