| Free book anti-recommendation [message #775822] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 12:46 |
|
Being, as I am, a bit of a Scott "Dilbert" Adams fan I decided to have a
go at his ebook "God's Debris", which is now available for free
download.
http://images.ucomics.com/images/pdfs/sadams/godsdebris.pdf
Unfortunately even free it seems be somewhat overpriced, but if you've
ever wanted to see an American with a sub-GCSE understanding of physics,
philosophy, theology and English language try to explain the universe
then it's the book for you.
I swear I have never before read a book[1] that has made me want to hunt
down the author and hurt them, but how else could somebody feel about
this kind of shit ...
"Most scientists agree that the universe is big, but finite."
"That doesn’t make sense. What if I took a rocket to the edge of the
universe, then I kept going. Couldn’t I keep going forever? Where would
I be if not in the universe?"
"You are always part of the universe, by definition. So when your rocket
goes beyond the current boundary, the boundary moves with you. You
become the outer edge for that direction. But the universe is still a
specific size, not infinite."
And it's not even like Dilbert is that funny these days either.
[1] Or, technically, read the first third of a book before giving up in
disgust.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775901 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 14:31 |
|
Andrewr At Work wrote:
>
> Being, as I am, a bit of a Scott "Dilbert" Adams fan I decided to have a
> go at his ebook "God's Debris", which is now available for free
> download.
>
> http://images.ucomics.com/images/pdfs/sadams/godsdebris.pdf
>
> Unfortunately even free it seems be somewhat overpriced, but if you've
> ever wanted to see an American with a sub-GCSE understanding of physics,
> philosophy, theology and English language try to explain the universe
> then it's the book for you.
I wrote off Scott Adams after the hippy shit at the end of the Dilbert
Future.
--
ogden
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775902 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 14:36 |
|
Andrewr At Work wrote:
> "Most scientists agree that the universe is big, but finite."
Do they?
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775903 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 14:37 |
|
"ogden" <ogden [at] pre.org> wrote in message news:44B39A0C.FDD183E7 [at] pre.org
> I wrote off Scott Adams after the hippy shit at the end of the Dilbert
> Future.
The hippy shit makes a reappearance, specifically his "theory" that
gravity is an illusion.
He speculates that there is no gravity, but everything in the universe
is destroyed and recreated in a random location every instant and that
it is most probable that large things will be near each other.
I mean, Jesus fucking Christ, "The Dilbert Future" must have been 5
years ago - has nobody in that time been able to explain to the Merkin
dip-shit what's wrong with that theory?
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775907 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 14:40 |
|
"Cane" <CaneUKRM [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152621371.482517.140860 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
> Andrewr At Work wrote:
>
> > "Most scientists agree that the universe is big, but finite."
>
> Do they?
I don't know, it's a quote from the book. Of course "most scientists"
would probably include a lot of, say, biologists, whose opinion doesn't
really matter on this issue.
In "A brief history of time" Hawking speculates that the universe may be
finite, but without a boundary, so I guess it's a reasonable view.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775908 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 14:44 |
|
Andrewr At Work wrote:
> > > "Most scientists agree that the universe is big, but finite."
> >
> > Do they?
>
> I don't know, it's a quote from the book. Of course "most scientists"
> would probably include a lot of, say, biologists, whose opinion doesn't
> really matter on this issue.
You really don't like this book do you.
> In "A brief history of time" Hawking speculates that the universe may be
> finite, but without a boundary, so I guess it's a reasonable view.
I find it dificult to imagine 'infinity' but as a layman how can you
have the end of the universe? What's on the other side?
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775909 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 14:46 |
|
Andrewr At Work wrote:
> "Cane" <CaneUKRM [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1152621371.482517.140860 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>
>> Andrewr At Work wrote:
>>
>>> "Most scientists agree that the universe is big, but finite."
>>
>> Do they?
>
> I don't know, it's a quote from the book. Of course "most scientists"
> would probably include a lot of, say, biologists, whose opinion
> doesn't really matter on this issue.
>
> In "A brief history of time" Hawking speculates that the universe may
> be finite, but without a boundary, so I guess it's a reasonable view.
We could differentiate between the Universe of matter and the span of
gravity within and beyond the matter, both of which are likely to be
finite....and the empty void into which it expanded. The void could be
infinite. It raises lots of not very fascinating questions.
If there is little or no matter in the void at any time how could it be
measured or delimited.
Could there be infinite finite globes of matter all an infinite distance
apart
......and so on
--
Hog
'96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775914 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 14:56 |
|
"Cane" <CaneUKRM [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152621845.625038.182290 [at] p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com
> Andrewr At Work wrote:
> > I don't know, it's a quote from the book. Of course "most scientists"
> > would probably include a lot of, say, biologists, whose opinion doesn't
> > really matter on this issue.
>
> You really don't like this book do you.
You guessed.
> > In "A brief history of time" Hawking speculates that the universe may be
> > finite, but without a boundary, so I guess it's a reasonable view.
>
> I find it dificult to imagine 'infinity' but as a layman how can you
> have the end of the universe? What's on the other side?
Well the point of it not having a boundary is that there isn't an "other
side". I think the analogy that he uses is the surface of the Earth -
it isn't infinitely large, but you can walk forever and never reach the
edge.
I think he's suggesting that the universe is like that, but in 3
dimensions. So you can travel as far as you want in any direction
without reaching an edge, but the universe is still finite.
Try sitting in a wheelchair and drooling down your tie until it makes
sense is my advice.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775916 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 15:01 |
|
Andrewr At Work wrote:
> > I find it dificult to imagine 'infinity' but as a layman how can you
> > have the end of the universe? What's on the other side?
>
> Well the point of it not having a boundary is that there isn't an "other
> side". I think the analogy that he uses is the surface of the Earth -
> it isn't infinitely large, but you can walk forever and never reach the
> edge.
>
> I think he's suggesting that the universe is like that, but in 3
> dimensions. So you can travel as far as you want in any direction
> without reaching an edge, but the universe is still finite.
Between you and Hog you've made me realise I need a much larger brain
to continue this discussion.
> Try sitting in a wheelchair and drooling down your tie until it makes
> sense is my advice.
Shit! Can you see me from there?
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775917 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 15:01 |
|
"Hog" <hogSPAM [at] freenetCHIPS.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4hhktgF1rc2q7U1 [at] individual.net
> We could differentiate between the Universe of matter and the span of
> gravity within and beyond the matter, both of which are likely to be
> finite....and the empty void into which it expanded. The void could be
> infinite.
I don't believe that current thinking is that there is a void into which
the universe expands, but rather that the universe provides its own void
> It raises lots of not very fascinating questions.
"Assuming that the universe is infinite in all directions and that time
is a function of the universe then are the pubs open yet?"
> If there is little or no matter in the void at any time how could it be
> measured or delimited.
> Could there be infinite finite globes of matter all an infinite distance
> apart
> .....and so on
I believe that this is 'brane theory, which was really trendy a couple
of years ago, so has probably been totally discredited by now.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775921 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 15:06 |
|
"Cane" <CaneUKRM [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>Andrewr At Work wrote:
>
>> "Most scientists agree that the universe is big, but finite."
>
>Do they?
I don't suppose it's worth asking for your opinion on the validity of
the Copenhagen Interpretation, is it?
--
d.
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775923 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 15:07 |
|
"Andrewr At Work" <andrewr [at] rockface.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>"That doesn’t make sense. What if I took a rocket to the edge of the
>universe, then I kept going. Couldn’t I keep going forever? Where would
>I be if not in the universe?"
Adams is a twat, who knows fuck all about cosmology.
Probably it would have been more helpful if I'd told you that before
you started reading his latest load of wank on the subject.
--
d.
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775924 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 15:07 |
|
"Cane" <CaneUKRM [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152622870.658552.136030 [at] m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
> Between you and Hog you've made me realise I need a much larger brain
> to continue this discussion.
Only if you want to make sense and, TBH, that never seems to have
bothered you in the past.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775927 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 15:10 |
|
Andrewr At Work wrote:
> > Between you and Hog you've made me realise I need a much larger brain
> > to continue this discussion.
>
> Only if you want to make sense and, TBH, that never seems to have
> bothered you in the past.
I've become old and sensible... it'll pass.
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775929 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 15:15 |
|
Andrewr At Work wrote:
> "Cane" <CaneUKRM [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1152622870.658552.136030 [at] m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com
>
>> Between you and Hog you've made me realise I need a much larger brain
>> to continue this discussion.
>
> Only if you want to make sense and, TBH, that never seems to have
> bothered you in the past.
TBF all theories on this subject are educated guesswork
--
Hog
'96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775930 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 15:16 |
|
"darsy" <darsy [at] sticky.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6j87b2lahbhpv4hkeo7ghumfhlp278lnv3 [at] 4ax.com
> "Andrewr At Work" <andrewr [at] rockface.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"That doesn’t make sense. What if I took a rocket to the edge of the
> >universe, then I kept going. Couldn’t I keep going forever? Where would
> >I be if not in the universe?"
>
> Adams is a twat, who knows fuck all about cosmology.
>
> Probably it would have been more helpful if I'd told you that before
> you started reading his latest load of wank on the subject.
He appears to know fuck all about pretty much everything.
Up to the point in the book where I gave up in disgust he discusses some
of the contradictions of a God being omnipotent and how it would fit
with human free-will.
Amazingly he appears to be under the impression that (a) he's the first
person to bring up these points and (b) is very clever.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775932 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 15:18 |
|
darsy wrote:
> >> "Most scientists agree that the universe is big, but finite."
> >
> >Do they?
>
> I don't suppose it's worth asking for your opinion on the validity of
> the Copenhagen Interpretation, is it?
I object both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it
includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability
functions into non-probabilistic measurements.
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775933 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 15:21 |
|
"Hog" <hogSPAM [at] freenetCHIPS.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4hhmk8F1s02rnU1 [at] individual.net
> TBF all theories on this subject are educated guesswork
Very true. Believing that that there are 15 dimensions, but most of
them are no bigger than an orange sounds like the sort of thing you'd
come up with while you waited for your kebab.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775937 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 15:50 |
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 13:46:33 +0100, "Hog" <hogSPAM [at] freenetCHIPS.co.uk>
wrote:
>Andrewr At Work wrote:
>> "Cane" <CaneUKRM [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1152621371.482517.140860 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
>>
>>> Andrewr At Work wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Most scientists agree that the universe is big, but finite."
>>>
>>> Do they?
>>
>> I don't know, it's a quote from the book. Of course "most scientists"
>> would probably include a lot of, say, biologists, whose opinion
>> doesn't really matter on this issue.
>>
>> In "A brief history of time" Hawking speculates that the universe may
>> be finite, but without a boundary, so I guess it's a reasonable view.
>
>We could differentiate between the Universe of matter and the span of
>gravity within and beyond the matter, both of which are likely to be
>finite....and the empty void into which it expanded. The void could be
>infinite.
PMFJI
but I fort that the void didn't exist until the space time continuum
expanded into it.
IFSWIM
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775938 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 15:50 |
|
"Cane" <CaneUKRM [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>darsy wrote:
>
>> >> "Most scientists agree that the universe is big, but finite."
>> >
>> >Do they?
>>
>> I don't suppose it's worth asking for your opinion on the validity of
>> the Copenhagen Interpretation, is it?
>
>I object both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it
>includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability
>functions into non-probabilistic measurements.
tee-hee - well done.
--
d.
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775939 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 15:55 |
|
darsy wrote:
> >> >> "Most scientists agree that the universe is big, but finite."
> >> >
> >> >Do they?
> >>
> >> I don't suppose it's worth asking for your opinion on the validity of
> >> the Copenhagen Interpretation, is it?
> >
> >I object both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it
> >includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability
> >functions into non-probabilistic measurements.
>
> tee-hee - well done.
if only I understood wtf it meant.
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775941 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 16:06 |
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:56:10 GMT, "Andrewr At Work"
<andrewr [at] rockface.freeserve.co.uk> allegedly wrote:
> I think he's suggesting that the universe is like that, but in 3
> dimensions. So you can travel as far as you want in any direction
> without reaching an edge, but the universe is still finite.
Exactly, it's simply 4 dimensional.
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775952 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 16:28 |
|
In article <994fcd12d73d261dfcddb70df7b85917.89895 [at] mygate.mailgate.org>, Andrewr At Work wrote:
> "darsy" <darsy [at] sticky.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> Up to the point in the book where I gave up in disgust he discusses some
> of the contradictions of a God being omnipotent and how it would fit
> with human free-will.
*Blink*
He gets stuck on that? Wow - he really is dim..
> Amazingly he appears to be under the impression that (a) he's the first
> person to bring up these points and (b) is very clever.
And c) seems to be unable to realise that the two are not mutually
contradictory.
Phil
--
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
Triumph Tiger 955i
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775954 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 16:40 |
|
"Phil Launchbury" <phill [at] launchbury.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrneb7dc0.9gm.phill [at] tabby.launchbury.org.uk
> In article <994fcd12d73d261dfcddb70df7b85917.89895 [at] mygate.mailgate.org>, Andrewr At Work wrote:
> > Amazingly he appears to be under the impression that (a) he's the first
> > person to bring up these points and (b) is very clever.
>
> And c) seems to be unable to realise that the two are not mutually
> contradictory.
His line of attack is the time worn question of whether god can see the
future. If he can not then he is not all powerful, if he can then
humans can not have free will, as this free will would include the
possibility that they would change the future from that seen by god.
To my simple way of thinking it seems to resolve nicely if there is no
god.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775956 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 16:40 |
|
Andrewr At Work wrote:
> "Hog" <hogSPAM [at] freenetCHIPS.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4hhmk8F1s02rnU1 [at] individual.net
>
>> TBF all theories on this subject are educated guesswork
>
> Very true. Believing that that there are 15 dimensions, but most of
> them are no bigger than an orange sounds like the sort of thing you'd
> come up with while you waited for your kebab.
Oh the 26 dimension Bosonic theory appears to have lost ground.
Quoting Wiki:
"However, eleven-dimensional supergravity is not consistent on its own -
it does not make sense at extremely high energy, and likely requires
some form of completion. It seems plausible, then, that there is some
quantum theory - which Witten dubbed M-theory - in eleven-dimensions
which gives rise at low energies to eleven-dimensional supergravity, and
is related to ten-dimensional string theory by dimensional reduction.
Dimensional reduction to a circle yields the Type IIA string theory, and
dimensional reduction to a line segment yields the heterotic SO(32)
string theory"
So that's all perfectly clear isn't it
--
Hog
'96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775960 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 16:44 |
|
Andrewr At Work wrote:
> "Phil Launchbury" <phill [at] launchbury.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrneb7dc0.9gm.phill [at] tabby.launchbury.org.uk
>
>> In article
>> <994fcd12d73d261dfcddb70df7b85917.89895 [at] mygate.mailgate.org>,
>> Andrewr At Work wrote:
>
>>> Amazingly he appears to be under the impression that (a) he's the
>>> first person to bring up these points and (b) is very clever.
>>
>> And c) seems to be unable to realise that the two are not mutually
>> contradictory.
>
> His line of attack is the time worn question of whether god can see
> the future. If he can not then he is not all powerful, if he can then
> humans can not have free will, as this free will would include the
> possibility that they would change the future from that seen by god.
>
> To my simple way of thinking it seems to resolve nicely if there is no
> god.
We don't really need him any more, we have the Pope now. He does all the
Saintification and everyfink now y'know
--
Hog
'96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #775964 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 16:48 |
|
"Andrewr At Work" <andrewr [at] rockface.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>His line of attack is the time worn question of whether god can see the
>future. If he can not then he is not all powerful, if he can then
>humans can not have free will, as this free will would include the
>possibility that they would change the future from that seen by god.
>
>To my simple way of thinking it seems to resolve nicely if there is no
>god.
it's also easily resolvable by invoking the "Many Worlds"
interpretation of quantum mechanics.
--
d.
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #776018 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 18:19 |
|
Hog wrote:
>
> Andrewr At Work wrote:
> > "Hog" <hogSPAM [at] freenetCHIPS.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:4hhmk8F1s02rnU1 [at] individual.net
> >
> >> TBF all theories on this subject are educated guesswork
> >
> > Very true. Believing that that there are 15 dimensions, but most of
> > them are no bigger than an orange sounds like the sort of thing you'd
> > come up with while you waited for your kebab.
>
> Oh the 26 dimension Bosonic theory appears to have lost ground.
>
> Quoting Wiki:
> "However, eleven-dimensional supergravity is not consistent on its own -
> it does not make sense at extremely high energy, and likely requires
> some form of completion. It seems plausible, then, that there is some
> quantum theory - which Witten dubbed M-theory - in eleven-dimensions
> which gives rise at low energies to eleven-dimensional supergravity, and
> is related to ten-dimensional string theory by dimensional reduction.
> Dimensional reduction to a circle yields the Type IIA string theory, and
> dimensional reduction to a line segment yields the heterotic SO(32)
> string theory"
Perhaps Sir may have less trouble with this version:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/String_theory
--
ogden
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #776070 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 19:44 |
|
ogden wrote:
> Hog wrote:
>> Oh the 26 dimension Bosonic theory appears to have lost ground.
>>
>> Quoting Wiki:
>> "However, eleven-dimensional supergravity is not consistent on its
>> own - it does not make sense at extremely high energy, and likely
>> requires some form of completion. It seems plausible, then, that
>> there is some quantum theory - which Witten dubbed M-theory - in
>> eleven-dimensions which gives rise at low energies to
>> eleven-dimensional supergravity, and is related to ten-dimensional
>> string theory by dimensional reduction. Dimensional reduction to a
>> circle yields the Type IIA string theory, and dimensional reduction
>> to a line segment yields the heterotic SO(32) string theory"
>
> Perhaps Sir may have less trouble with this version:
>
> http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/String_theory
Quantum cheddardynamics lol lovely
--
Hog
'96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #776164 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 22:07 |
|
In message <1e803d138c9a7a36f491983347597320.89895 [at] mygate.mailgate.org>,
Andrewr At Work <andrewr [at] rockface.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>"Hog" <hogSPAM [at] freenetCHIPS.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4hhktgF1rc2q7U1 [at] individual.net
>
>
>> We could differentiate between the Universe of matter and the span of
>> gravity within and beyond the matter, both of which are likely to be
>> finite....and the empty void into which it expanded. The void could be
>> infinite.
>
>I don't believe that current thinking is that there is a void into which
>the universe expands, but rather that the universe provides its own void
>
>> It raises lots of not very fascinating questions.
>
>"Assuming that the universe is infinite in all directions and that time
>is a function of the universe then are the pubs open yet?"
>
>> If there is little or no matter in the void at any time how could it be
>> measured or delimited.
>> Could there be infinite finite globes of matter all an infinite distance
>> apart
>> .....and so on
>
>I believe that this is 'brane theory, which was really trendy a couple
>of years ago, so has probably been totally discredited by now.
>
Isn't stealth neutrinos where it's at now ?
--
geoff
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #776260 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 23:50 |
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:50:54 +0100, darsy wrote:
<snip>
> tee-hee
What's up with you lately? You're giggling like a school girl.
--
Simon - UKRM~verdigris,plus,com
Tiger - A return to good sense.
Z1000 - Less sense, more sensation.
MAG BOTAFOT#36 two#22 HLR#pi BONY#62 BHaLC#3 LotR#7
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #776274 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 00:12 |
|
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Cane" <CaneUKRM [at] gmail.com> saying
something like:
>> I don't suppose it's worth asking for your opinion on the validity of
>> the Copenhagen Interpretation, is it?
>
>I object both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it
>includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability
>functions into non-probabilistic measurements.
The Danes hate to see it leave?
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a
In my trousers.
Folding [at] Home Team UKRM http://www.tinyurl.com/jkxwv
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #776276 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 00:14 |
|
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Hog" <hogSPAM [at] freenetCHIPS.co.uk>
saying something like:
>> His line of attack is the time worn question of whether god can see
>> the future. If he can not then he is not all powerful, if he can then
>> humans can not have free will, as this free will would include the
>> possibility that they would change the future from that seen by god.
>>
>> To my simple way of thinking it seems to resolve nicely if there is no
>> god.
>
>We don't really need him any more, we have the Pope now. He does all the
>Saintification and everyfink now y'know
To be honest, I think I prefer a universal interpretation that doesn't
require kissing of rings.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a
In my trousers.
Folding [at] Home Team UKRM http://www.tinyurl.com/jkxwv
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #776349 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 08:18 |
|
Verdigris <verdigris [at] deadspam.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:50:54 +0100, darsy wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> tee-hee
>
>What's up with you lately? You're giggling like a school girl.
sorry.
--
d.
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #776354 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 09:01 |
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 15:40:47 +0100, Hog <hogSPAM [at] freenetCHIPS.co.uk>
wrote in <4hhrjtF1rmjpcU1 [at] individual.net>:
> dimensional reduction to a line segment yields the heterotic SO(32)
> string theory"
<Beavis & Butthead>
Heh! He said "erotic"... (What's a het, anyway?)
</B&B>
--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid [at] [brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
GSX600F, RG250WD "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO#003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #776415 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 11:02 |
|
In article <7b19db49c1b4eab1b3653a423ee77576.89895 [at] mygate.mailgate.org>, Andrewr At Work wrote:
> "Phil Launchbury" <phill [at] launchbury.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrneb7dc0.9gm.phill [at] tabby.launchbury.org.uk
>
>> And c) seems to be unable to realise that the two are not mutually
>> contradictory.
>
> His line of attack is the time worn question of whether god can see the
> future. If he can not then he is not all powerful, if he can then
> humans can not have free will, as this free will would include the
Being able to see all times and spaces simultaneously does not remove
free will - that is only removed if action is taken in order to remove
the free will.
For example - I *know* that millions of people are going to waste their
money on playing the lottery this weekend. It doesn't mean that I lose
the ability to decide for myself whether I play it or not.
It's mind-numbingly simple. I'm amazed that anyone can get hung up
about it.
> possibility that they would change the future from that seen by god.
Which only becomes a problem if humans too can see the future.
Otherwise how will they know what they are changing it from?
Phil.
--
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
Triumph Tiger 955i
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #779185 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 21:01 |
|
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:18:29 +0100, darsy wrote:
> Verdigris <verdigris [at] deadspam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:50:54 +0100, darsy wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> tee-hee
>>
>>What's up with you lately? You're giggling like a school girl.
>
> sorry.
I wasn't complaining so much as concerned for your well being.
--
Simon - UKRM~verdigris,plus,com
Tiger - A return to good sense.
Z1000 - Less sense, more sensation.
MAG BOTAFOT#36 two#22 HLR#pi BONY#62 BHaLC#3 LotR#7
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #779200 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 21:32 |
|
Phil Launchbury <phill [at] launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Being able to see all times and spaces simultaneously does not remove
> free will - that is only removed if action is taken in order to remove
> the free will.
This seems fairly OK.
> For example - I *know* that millions of people are going to waste their
> money on playing the lottery this weekend. It doesn't mean that I lose
> the ability to decide for myself whether I play it or not.
As does this.
> It's mind-numbingly simple. I'm amazed that anyone can get hung up
> about it.
True; it does, however, have nothing to do with the God situation.
God not only sees & knows all, he started the whole shabang running in
the first place, yes? When creating the universe he must have known
exactly the effect of the set of variables he chose, and exactly how to
have a different effect (no lottery players) by modifying them.
As a crappy example, when god throws a pair of dice, can the result be
random?
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #779216 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 22:12 |
|
Verdigris <verdigris [at] deadspam.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:18:29 +0100, darsy wrote:
>
>> Verdigris <verdigris [at] deadspam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:50:54 +0100, darsy wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> tee-hee
>>>
>>>What's up with you lately? You're giggling like a school girl.
>>
>> sorry.
>
>I wasn't complaining so much as concerned for your well being.
je suis un peu soumis à une contrainte à l'heure actuelle
--
d.
|
|
|
| Re: Free book anti-recommendation [message #779387 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 11:58 |
|
In article <slrneba9aq.6jb.Simon [at] mini.semi-evolved.org>, Simon Gates wrote:
> Phil Launchbury <phill [at] launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
>
> God not only sees & knows all, he started the whole shabang running in
> the first place, yes? When creating the universe he must have known
Indeed.
> exactly the effect of the set of variables he chose, and exactly how to
> have a different effect (no lottery players) by modifying them.
Indeed. And one of the variables that he used was that people could
make their own minds up about what they did.
Which means even though he can see exactly what is/shall/has happened
he doesn't control the actions of people - except in very specific
circumstances.
> As a crappy example, when god throws a pair of dice, can the result be
> random?
No. But then a dice isn't self-aware.
Phil
--
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
Triumph Tiger 955i
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'
|
|
|
