Please watch:
And note: Without the freedom to lie, pseudoscience wouldn’t be able to exist. Nor would the majority of the world’s current political problems.
Categories
-
Join 499 other subscribers
- Follow Climate of Sophistry on WordPress.com
Recent Comments
- CD Marshall on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- CD Marshall on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- boomie789 on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- boomie789 on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- boomie789 on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- boomie789 on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- CD Marshall on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- In different context we hear; “You’re allowed to believe what ever you want!” But for example science isn’t about what people chose to believe, in fact it’s only about what the data shows, raw, unadjusted, real world empirica on No Peer Reviewed Evidence for Climate Science
- In different context we hear; “You’re allowed to believe what ever you want!” But for example science isn’t about what people chose to believe, in fact it’s only about what the data shows, raw, unadjusted, real world empirica on No Peer Reviewed Evidence for Climate Science
- In different context we hear; “You’re allowed to believe what ever you want!” But for example science isn’t about what people chose to believe, in fact it’s only about what the data shows, raw, unadjusted, real world empirica on No Peer Reviewed Evidence for Climate Science
- CD Marshall on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
- Joseph E Postma on Explaining the Double-Slit Experiment without Probabilism
Climate of Sophistry 
So if we multiply 239.7 W/m2 by 2= 479.4 W/m2 then it should warm the Earth by 2 x -18C = (2 x 255 K=) 510K= 236.85C= 458.33F?
The math doesn’t transform through that way, linearly. Flux goes as the fourth power of temperature. So it is an increase of the fourth root of 2, i.e. 1.19: 1.19 x 255K = 303K = 30C = 86 F.
Reblogged this on Roald J. Larsen.
How do you apply the scientific method to things that exist outside our limited frame of reference? For example, light exists. But how would a 2-dimensional being be able to apply the scientific method to discover that truth? If you suggest that belief in God needs to submit to the scientific method, then you deny the existence of God simply because God is not confined to, or measurable in, our more limited existence. Hence Freedom of Speech and Religion, fundamental human rights. From that emerges self-governance, from which some will always develop paths of untruth, either benevolent or malevolent in intent.
You cannot possibly successfully define “rational”, when it always depends on the assumption that all that exists is measurable, and therefore you have no basis for law.
Of course, we can define “rational” — it is a word invented by humans to describe human perceptions. As such it is a useful device to distinguish faulty human perceptions from fruitful human perceptions. Laws are to help humans coexist, and rationality that distinguishes some actions from others as more fruitful for human lives is certainly a legitimate basis for designing a human tool of shared societal existence.
Well your question gets right to the outer-most limits of human existence and the limit of our ability to measure or think.
Human existence already has those problems, and already they have no well-known solution.
And so I think that demanding that any new idea must be able to address the very outer-most limits of human experience sets the bar too highly impractical.
What Propertarianism practically aims to do is to make lying by politicians/news/academia/etc. punishable by any citizen. If there is lying occurring, and this lying affects the Commons, and while most people may not detect the lie, but even one person does, then that person can formulate an argument and/or demonstration to make the lie apparent, exposed, and known, and can seek restitution for that lie for himself for the benefit of the Commons.
Western Civilization is about how the adherence to truth – empirical and rational truth – creates the most wealth, productivity, happiness, and personal fulfillment for the citizenry.
Please watch the video again and focus on the practical aspects. This is not about solving the question of God and your soul for you. It is about evolving our political system, making it better, by improving upon and solidifying in Law the now-identified metrics which made Western Civilization so wealthy in the first place. And it’s simple! TRUTH!
We hold that truth can be determined. That is another core of the Western heritage going back to the ancient Greeks, and through that entire history of the Intellectual Tradition since then which the West has usually been centred upon.
We hold that truth can be determined. It follows that it is possible to define “rational”, and to BE rational and truthful.
If you reject these things, then by what right have you to speak on anything, particularly your own unknowably-if-true concerns?
If by belief in God you mean faith, faith is of course by definition that which is believed in without rational evidence or reason. Usually it’s the need of some emotion to be fulfilled…typically the need to feel dominated, strangely. Humanity has an obsession with sado-masochism. Well, some part of “humanity” does, and then others were tricked into that same mindset via Christianity.
No, I think that Propertarianism is for those who “kill” God, for those who wish to become God themselves.
Plato of course made the point that not all which exists is physically measurable, and that there may be existence of things detectable only by the mind, only by reason. He got that idea from Pythagoras who said that the hidden order or nature of things was numbers and mathematical relations, which of course cannot be directly observed with the empirical senses, but only inferred as existing behind the appearance by reason and thus detected only in the mind. And that statement of Pythagoras reduces directly to the concept that truth is determinable, and that it can be discovered by reason. And what is more determinable and rational than mathematics? Nothing.
Anyway…there is certainly basis for Law in Truth…and Truth isn’t dependent upon whichever formulation of “God” you personally subscribe to.
Our limited existence is all we know and all we CAN know. I cannot know or grasp what I CANNOT know or grasp. To entertain the idea that I acknowledge what I cannot know or grasp is a contradiction.
As a four-dimensional being, we can only use a language exercise to speak of a “two dimensional being” — there cannot be any such being outside our imaginations, because we cannot know or grasp it in our perceptions beyond imagination. Why would we postulate that such a being exists? What exists for humans is all that we can know or grasp with our senses, and this includes our imagination. Some entities, thus, can exist ONLY in our imaginations, which is NOT tangible reality, because we cannot know whether such is or is not tangible.
Robert: I use the illustration of describing light to a 2D creature not because such creatures exist, but because it is not possible to identify what additional degrees of freedom would permit as “reality”, when we are constrained to only 3 (for my purposes, time is a result of the other three, not an independent degree of freedom. If that bothers you, then consider describing light to a 3D creature). The 2D creature has neither matter, nor light, because those things require (again, in the conventions I grew up with) 3 dimensions. With that massive difference between the 2D and 3D world, how can we begin to describe a 4D world?
Now, to both you and Joe: to be God, God must transcend the limits of our universe, and that requires at least one degree of freedom we do not possess, or God is just as trapped as we are, doomed to heat death, or collapse, or whatever.
It is folly to require that there is nothing outside of the 3D universe, not least of which because that assumes there is no God, who would transcend that limited world, and therefore only by touchable on his terms, not by our measurement.
This is where “rational”, as used in the Propertarian sense, falls flat, because Truth is larger than we can quantify, and is only partially experienced even by those dedicated to find it. Ultimately, imperfect men holding other imperfect men to account for “lying” becomes nothing more than an exercise in power applied by some tyrannical faction. Which is why “lying” has limited application under law, and certainly no place in the emotional pursuit of governance. Evidence? The process crimes the Mueller/Weissmann has trapped people in. I know one of the “victims” of that pair, and he’s a nice fellow, trying hard to be helpful. For that he and his family were threatened with ruin.
No thanks. Nothing worse than a billion foolish bumbling accusers loose with the power to “humble” those they accuse. Civilization would be ground into the dust. Have you learned nothing from the many, varied “Ministries of Truth” across the last few centuries? Nothing from those vary sentiments in China, Venezuela, and North Korea? Civilization works at all because we limit the power being wielded over others, not because any person has a magical amount of “Truth” at his command.
30 years ago I held a view very much like this idea. As time went on, and I kept trying to apply the idea to one situation after another, I discovered the dark reality that it is impossible as long as man is imperfect. Hopefully you won’t take as long as I did to cast it aside.
Pingback: Propertarianism SIMPLY Explained | PSI Intl
Joe, Many thanks for bringing this to wider attention: https://principia-scientific.org/propertarianism-simply-explained/
Cheers John!
A 2 dimentions being. Where does what he eats go ? Sideways ?
The universe exists today. We know that because we can see it, touch it, smell it, taste it, hear it !
If the universe had existed for ever then God could not have existed before that. His prior existence would be excluded by the very definition of infinity. But, we know that the universe is in expansion which, by itself, determines a moment of creation. Therefore, God, if he exists, must have existed before the creation of the universe to have created it. If God has existed before the creation of the universe then he must have existed for an infinite amount of time (since always) otherwise himself would have had to be created at some point.
We know that the universe is in expansion. Whether this universe will expand for ever (a one time event) or that it will some day start to contract and end up in a Big Crunch and possibly restart with another Big Bang (cyclical event), we don’t know. One thing we know is that this universe is in motion and that that motion is already preordained by the laws of physics. That we don’t know exactly what these laws are or say is irrelevant. There is therefore no need of a God to determine the fate of this universe.
His believers claim that God has infinite power (He’s all powerful). Having infinite power implies having also infinite energy as prescribed by the law of physics, E=P*t. His infinite energy implies that God must also have infinite mass as prescribed by Einstein’s theory of relativity, E=M*C2, which has been proven right over and over again. Since his believers say that God is everywhere (and sees everything, hears everything, knows everything) then God must be part of our universe. He can not be everywhere and at the same time not be inside our universe. We know that our universe is in expansion which implies that our universe has a finite volume. An infinite mass God in a finite volume universe implies an infinitely dense universe. The whole universe should therefore be one big block of infinitely dense matter. We know that this is not true. The air is light and the interstellar space is essentially empty.
Conclusion… God does not exist !!!
What about the mass we see all around us ? The earth we stand on ? Our sun ? The stars ? Ourselves ? All this mass is part of our universe and should be added to God’s mass in this universe to have the total mass of our universe. Since God is not the only mass in this universe, then, God does not have infinite mass. Since God does not have infinite mass, God does not have infinite energy!
Conclusion… God does not exist !!!
To those who claim that God is only spirit and that he has no mass. What about the energy we see from the sun, from the stars and from inside our own earth ? Our universe is full of energy. If God has infinite energy then there should be no energy left for those things to exist ! Forget about Einstein’s theory of relativity. This is simple arithmetic.
Conclusion… God does not exist !!!
We have clearly established that if God exists, he has existed since infinity into the past, that he is not needed to determine the future of this universe and that he does not have infinite energy. If God does not have infinite energy then he will run out of energy at some point in time, between infinity into the past and before infinity into the future. Now, what kind of God runs out of energy in his life time and then dies ?
Conclusion… God does not exist !!!
Just to make sure…
Did God count all the whole numbers from 0 to infinity ? To count to infinity implies counting one more number all the time. You never get to the end of it. Since everything in our universe has a speed limit, even light, nothing can be done at an infinite rate of speed. Therefore, it would take until infinity into the future to count from zero to infinity. Since we have not reached infinity into the future yet, then God did not do it yet. Since God is not all powerful and will run out of energy at some point in time, he will not get to do it either. You think that God is not limited in speed ? Well… he did take 6 days to create the universe and he had to rest the 7th ! So… I think he is !
Conclusion… God, as described in the Bible, does not exist.
If any other kind of God exists then he must have been created simultaneously with the creation of the universe and so will die with it ! That kind of God has to obey the laws of the universe and as such has no privilege power over us. It’s the laws of the universe that has power over us, not God !
Tomhwp1013 you’re making up incoherent and fanciful ideas to ignore something which has nothing to do with them. Very strange!
Hmmmmm ….the Copernican deception of materialistic cosmology: I’m not suggesting you watch all this video, although its worth it in my opinion, but take what you think and discard the rest. Discard it all if you wish ….its your choice…..
Joe: Fanciful? No, merely acknowledging that a being confined to a set of freedoms (x,y,z, and t if you care to include it) cannot consider what it is like to have an additional degree of freedom. To describe that understanding, I compare to a imagination of a creature confined to (x,y, and t), and present the things that we consider real but that creature cannot even postulate let alone describe or measure. The difference between that 2D and 3D reality is staggering. Are you really saying that extension to 4D — whatever form that additional degree of freedom takes — cannot exist, or can be described?
I contend that to be God, God cannot be confined to this same (x,y,z,t) set of freedoms, because that means God is simply another creature. To suggest one can prove, using x,y,z,t tools and limitations to both description and understanding, that God either exists or does not exist, is folly. Nor can one definitively prove, for the same reasons, that there is, or is not, reality beyond the degrees of freedom we enjoy.
Personally, I’m content with the pursuit of all that can be observed as the domain of science, and it is pleasing that the boundaries of science keep pushing farther and farther away. But I am also content with the idea that God can be found by faith even if not by telescope or voltmeter.
Fanciful? No, just respectful of what we can know by measurement, and what we can know because God responds to faith and touches us in ways not measurable with our instruments.
tom,
I suspect that the whole idea of “dimensions” is as arbitrary as any number of imagined dimensions.
Thus, I cannot give any validity to your “two-dimensional being” nor to your omni-dimensional God being.
My suggestion is that there is one and only one dimension, AND there is one and only UNIverse.
We might be better off limiting our conceptions to this more economical perception.
There is being. Now if you want to call all being “God”, then, okay, you can do that. I don’t. But my idea of this does not disable my interacting with a person who might like to speak in such terms.
If God is all being, then humans are parts of this one being in this one universe. Like cells in a body, we have identities that are separate, yet parts of this body. The cell is quite different from the body. The cell cannot “know” the body, but it can function to sustain the body. Likewise, I cannot know all being, or I cannot know God. I must function in my independence in cooperation with my proximate fellow “cells” (i.e., other people).
How we cooperate and conduct our affairs in this cosmic existence is proximately up to us. If we screw up in our functions as cells of this grand whole, then we are like disease cells in a grand body that has so many other cells that it makes little difference. The universe, all being, or God goes on without us. No problem.
My life is here, now, on this earth, in this time, as one of those cells trying to aid, in some small way, my fellow cells to work together better. What can we focus on, therefore, on this earth, here, now that makes us a better part of the greater unity of being, universe, God?
Despising ourselves as parts of nature is not part of the agenda that I have in mind. Calling one of the the very basic elements of our existence (carbon) “pollution” is also not part of the agenda.
Think about it: when people call carbon or carbon dioxide “pollution”, they are calling the basis of God’s cells “pollution”.
http://voluntaryist.com/tag/andrew-j-galambos/
Not much point in arguing about the differences between a plane and 3-space: they are obvious and illustrative of the primary point: if there is a God, He must have at least one degree of freedom — which we can call a “dimension” only because we have no word to describe whatever that degree of freedom really is — more than we do. If not, then “God” lives and dies with the universe. Really not a complicated idea, Robert. But let’s leave it at that.