The pictures behind your eyes

[Yahwe]

you also talk about neutrinos.

that's called hedging your bet kid.

so tut tut

[mist]

i don't get any pretty colours, untill i open my eyes again and then everything looked funny for a couple of seconds

does this mean my eyes are broken? :/

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by mist

i don't get any pretty colours, untill i open my eyes again and then everything looked funny for a couple of seconds

does this mean my eyes are broken? :/

yes

[Gumbie]

I said the nuetrino thing was an invalid example, I went all the way with my claims of eye jamming makes you a space captain.

Mist, look at a camera flash when it goes off. That should give you the same effect. It's the sudden change in light intensity that excites the nerves, so they give false readings of light being detected, after the light has gone. You get something similar if you look at the Sun say, and get a multicoloured dot image "burned" into your vision.

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by queball

I don't see how he's wrong. If he's referring to the putative effect that astronauts see flashes when their eyes are closed, caused by cosmic radiation. It's like the neutrino detector tanks.

thank you, some else who sees sense, just reading the new scientist bit i saw it from, its called the Cherenkov light, however on earth, its magnetic field blocks most of these particles. so the already low chance of it happening is vastly reduced hence why noone talks about it

[Gumbie]

But you also need vast ammounts of dense and transparent material to
a) Block the particle
b) Get excited and release this energy as visible light
c) Be transparent to allow the light to travel through it to observers on the outside (or through your eye jelly to your retina).

Parts b) and c) aren't the object. Point a) is.
The statistical chance of a particular particle blocking something like a nuetrino is very low. Therefore the chance of it happening inside something as small as your eye compared to huge water tanks is even smaller. Even if by a fluke, it did happen, it would not be enough to generate the patterns described.
In short, your point is interesting, but wrong in this instance.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

he said he had trouble nodding off in pitch black, there's not going to be any sunlight or special magic bunny radiation around is there?

Unless he's sleeping in a lead box, there's going to be gamma radiation. Unless he's sleeping at absolute zero, there's going to be infra-red radiation. Unless he's sleeping inside some container that is beyond anything physics has ever dreamed about*, there's going to be neutrinoes. And so on in this fashion.

*Given that there are innumerate neutrinoes passing through the earth at any given moment, and an immensely small number of these actually hit anything, you may begin to see the problem with saying that there won't be any.

[Gumbie]

The chance of gamma radiation stopping in his eyes is pretty damn low given it normally needs a quantity of lead to block. If there's low ammounts of infa red, htere's a good possibility it will just warm his eyelids.

And given your own statement of very few of these being able to hit anything, neutrinos aren't going to flash up his eyes any time soon.

I like your use of "immensly small" though. In any case, we're now just repeating previous points on an irrelivent concern.

What are the possibilities, other than radiation induced?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Gumbie

In any case, we're now just repeating previous points on an irrelivent concern.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Gumbie

What are the possibilities, other than radiation induced?

I wasn't commenting on the possibilities, just the absurdity of the statement that the room would be lacking in radiation.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I wasn't commenting on the possibilities, just the absurdity of the statement that the room would be lacking in radiation.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

there's not going to be any ... special magic bunny radiation

you think this is an absurd statement?

[Gumbie]

I think he was saying there's won't be radiation in significant quantities, unlike daytime where there might be a touch more infra red.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

you think this is an absurd statement?

I don't know what kind of radiation magical bunnies produce. There may be all kinds of fallout, so I was covering all my bases.

[queball]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Yeah, but we're not astronauts are we?

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

<3 <3 <3

[mist]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

*Given that there are innumerate neutrinoes passing through the earth at any given moment, and an immensely small number of these actually hit anything, you may begin to see the problem with saying that there won't be any.

i was under the impression that particle accelerators were built a significant distance underground so that this radiation would be minimised?

this kindof implies that a good chunk of solid earth will largely negate it?

[Gumbie]

What if you eliminate all but 2 things, both of which are plausable, niether of which you can reasonably disprove?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mist

i was under the impression that particle accelerators were built a significant distance underground so that this radiation would be minimised?

this kindof implies that a good chunk of solid earth will largely negate it?

Not neutrinos though. Obviously if five hundred miles of lead doesn't stop neutrinos they're hardly going to interact with you and cause cancer or whatever.

Originally Posted by Gumbie

What if you eliminate all but 2 things, both of which are plausable, niether of which you can reasonably disprove?

You go for the one with more evidence backing it up. I can't imagine how staggeringly unlikely two real macro-world scenarios with exactly the same probability would be.

[Gumbie]

Well, until you delve into the realm of questions like, "Does God exist?" Deduction holds up I guess.

[JonnyBGood]

Does god exist is not a real macro-world scenario. As a matter of fact it's so far from it it's difficult to imagine how you could possibly consider it to be a question about the physical world.

[Gumbie]

Evidence of miracles? Arguements by creationists? The state of God if he exists or not has a direct relation to the status of the world.

The fact that you can't deduce the answer is what puts it in your catagory of not being a real world question, given there is not going to be an answer in this world. It is however intrinsically tied to discussion over the nature of the universe. And in the case of holmesian deduction theory, Holmes would deduce that the nature of the universe points to a conclusion. The difference is the scale on which the nature of the universe is considered.
"Was this man in the universe shot or stabbed?", is comparable to, "was this planet in the universe God made, or random occurance?"

[JonnyBGood]

What? "Does god is a metaphysical question". Hence it is not a real macro-world scenario. What part of this do you not get or disagree with?

It's similar to claiming that who made the paper on which a mathematical question is written is a mathematical question itself. You're in completely the wrong context.

Even your own comparison should clue you in to how ridiculously bizzare it is. One is a question about causality inside the universe and the other is a question about the origin of the universe itself.


PS If I get treated like an idiot by one more new poster on this forum I'm seriously going to start banning people. From now on assume I know literally everything .

[Gumbie]

I'm not treating you as an idiot, I'm showing you my perception, which you can do with as you will. I think I always just come across as patronising due to my writing style where I try to be to clever. My apologies.

But what is this complete disregard that God could be a real agent who acted inside of time to start all causality? This is plausable, and was presented (in the rather basic) Cosmological Arguements of Thomas Aquinas. Now it is a real situation. Did the universe spontaneously exist, or was it created by a divine agent? As this creative process occured inside of time, it would be possible to gather evidence for both sides, both conclusions of which are possible, but which the answer cannot be resolved.All you can conclude is that both are possible, at which point it comes down to personal preference.

I however think your analogy is flawed. Both questions are of the nature "what happened on this occasion?" One is just significantly more complex than the other. Perhaps there is an error in my example as well.
"Who made this watch?"
"Who created this universe?"
This would be a better presentation of the similarities. In the first instance, you could check fingerprints, tells in the workmanship to reveal a style etc, and in the second do the same on a larger scale. Evidence of evil in the world would be a strike against the idea of the "Traditional View of God" (which in turn is inconsistent with the Judeo Christian God), miracles could be fingerprints, Man being created in the image of God being a tell to the workman's style.
I think the key problem here though is that the principle of Holmes Deduction hold true, rather that in my instances, we do not have sufficient evidence at this stage. This was the point I was trying to make that Homles reasoning cannot hold true in the real world. We do not have sufficient faculties to remove all the impossible. I am trying my best, starting by removing radiation as a possibility.

I think however, in light of your response that I'm being to serious about it, and we're not actually trying to find the source of his hallucinations. In any case, I'm having fun, and I appreciate feedback (preferably not just anonymous rep comments to "stop being a cock") on how to fit in better.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Gumbie

But what is this complete disregard that God could be a real agent who acted inside of time to start all causality?

i don't think you're allowed a cause and effect argument to explain the origin of cause and effect.

[Gumbie]

Sure you can. Trace cause and effect back far enough and there much be an origin. I'm just postulating that we can't deduce if it's spontaneous genesis or God induced.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Gumbie

But what is this complete disregard that God could be a real agent who acted inside of time to start all causality? This is plausable, and was presented (in the rather basic) Cosmological Arguements of Thomas Aquinas. Now it is a real situation. Did the universe spontaneously exist, or was it created by a divine agent? As this creative process occured inside of time, it would be possible to gather evidence for both sides, both conclusions of which are possible, but which the answer cannot be resolved.All you can conclude is that both are possible, at which point it comes down to personal preference.

The creation of time did not occur inside in time. That's just plain wrong.

I however think your analogy is flawed. Both questions are of the nature "what happened on this occasion?" One is just significantly more complex than the other. Perhaps there is an error in my example as well.
"Who made this watch?"
"Who created this universe?"
This would be a better presentation of the similarities. In the first instance, you could check fingerprints, tells in the workmanship to reveal a style etc, and in the second do the same on a larger scale. Evidence of evil in the world would be a strike against the idea of the "Traditional View of God" (which in turn is inconsistent with the Judeo Christian God), miracles could be fingerprints, Man being created in the image of God being a tell to the workman's style.
I think the key problem here though is that the principle of Holmes Deduction hold true, rather that in my instances, we do not have sufficient evidence at this stage. This was the point I was trying to make that Homles reasoning cannot hold true in the real world. We do not have sufficient faculties to remove all the impossible. I am trying my best, starting by removing radiation as a possibility.

The problem here lies in the fact you have no context in which to compare. You'd suspect the existence of a watch-maker because you're aware of the fact that there are things called watches and that in your experience these things have makers. What experience of other universes and their makers do you or I have?

As regards your original question

What if you eliminate all but 2 things, both of which are plausable, niether of which you can reasonably disprove?

my point was you will always have more evidence pointing towards one than the other. Or you might have no evidence in which case occam's razor applies.

I think however, in light of your response that I'm being to serious about it, and we're not actually trying to find the source of his hallucinations. In any case, I'm having fun, and I appreciate feedback (preferably not just anonymous rep comments to "stop being a cock") on how to fit in better.

Fitting in better is just knowing your audience. So spend more time on here reading people's posts, and how others act towards them, and you'll "fit in better" (ie stop annoying people through very little fault of your own).

[mist]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The creation of time did not occur inside in time. That's just plain wrong.

i was going to mention this, but it seemed obvious enough. guess we live and learn.

[Gumbie]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The creation of time did not occur inside in time. That's just plain wrong.

I was saying that the Universe was created after time, and that either time always existed, and the universe has not, or that time was created just before the universe. But that's a moot point. Once the universe starts to exist it becomes spacetime.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

The problem here lies in the fact you have no context in which to compare. You'd suspect the existence of a watch-maker because you're aware of the fact that there are things called watches and that in your experience these things have makers. What experience of other universes and their makers do you or I have?

I would say it sprouts from a priori logic, rationalising from the basis of I know "things" such as watches have makers, and so could expand it out to the whole world around me. This is a horrible amalgamation of A-level theories, but I could bring in the design argument at this point to show that one can gather evidence from what I do know, to expand through analogy to what I don't. The downside is it can easily be inaccurate.

This does support my theory that Holmesian thery can't be applied to everything, due to unknown factors that will always exist. You make a good point about occams razor though. I would say though that occams razor relies too much on assumtion to be reasonably called deduction though.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

As regards your original question my point was you will always have more evidence pointing towards one than the other. Or you might have no evidence in which case occam's razor applies.

I would agree with that, if you don't know, rationalise and guess based on what seems to be logical.

On another note of inquiry, and after some reading, are these boards to be used to in depth serious discussion? There seems to be some audience for it, but generally only on current affairs and suchlike.
I checked Programming and Discussion, but that's programming discussion, and I'm incedibly underknowledged in that department. Is it just a case of give it a go, and hope the thread sparks some interest?

[Cedlind]

Originally Posted by Gumbie

In any case, I'm having fun, and I appreciate feedback (preferably not just anonymous rep comments to "stop being a cock") on how to fit in better.

Just stop being a cock should help..

[Gumbie]

I'ma break your legs.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Gumbie

I was saying that the Universe was created after time, and that either time always existed, and the universe has not, or that time was created just before the universe. But that's a moot point. Once the universe starts to exist it becomes spacetime.

What? Are you completely mad? I think it's time to quote sandage and tamann

Space and time were created in [the Big Bang] and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the big bang, it is somewhat like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the Big Bang took place. The point universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the only answer can be that the Big Bang happened everywhere.

I would say it sprouts from a priori logic, rationalising from the basis of I know "things" such as watches have makers, and so could expand it out to the whole world around me. This is a horrible amalgamation of A-level theories, but I could bring in the design argument at this point to show that one can gather evidence from what I do know, to expand through analogy to what I don't. The downside is it can easily be inaccurate.

Hold on, a prior reasoning has nothing to do with the fact have makers. That is something we can only discover from empirical research (ie experience), therefore it's a posteriori reasoning. As for the arguments to design they are horribly, horribly flawed pieces of reasoning. There is no a priori connection between complexity-specification and genuine design. Since only experience can tell, it is necessary to look and see if those indicators are present in cases of design and non-design, and that requires you to have a way of identifying cases of design and non-design independently of the indicators in question.

This does support my theory that Holmesian thery can't be applied to everything, due to unknown factors that will always exist. You make a good point about occams razor though. I would say though that occams razor relies too much on assumtion to be reasonably called deduction though.

Holmesian logic is largely abductive reasoning rather than deductive reasoning. Saying that occam's razor relies too much on assumption is pretty ironic seeing as the entire point of it is to avoid unnecessary assumptions.

I would agree with that, if you don't know, rationalise and guess based on what seems to be logical.

It's not guessing. It's rational belief. Very few things are conclusively demonstrated in the absolute sense but there are nearly always more reasonable methods within a particular framework.

On another note of inquiry, and after some reading, are these boards to be used to in depth serious discussion? There seems to be some audience for it, but generally only on current affairs and suchlike.
I checked Programming and Discussion, but that's programming discussion, and I'm incedibly underknowledged in that department. Is it just a case of give it a go, and hope the thread sparks some interest?

If you feel like it yes. GD has a fairly broad knowledge base and I find most of the users to be relatively open-minded.

[Gumbie]

Ok, so time and space become at the same point, in which case, the original causaily comes about at this point, or outside of time. Both God and Spontaneous Genesis should be able to have that causality in that situation.

I said the Design arguement was inaccurate and flawed, but I'm getting desperate.

The use of "guess" is a poor one. Rationalise and estimate.

My use of a priori logic is on the basis that I have no experience to compare with. I do not have experience of a universe with no creator as well as one with a creator to make judgements on the current one. Therefore I have to take some basic premises, and expand out my logic in order to define what I think a created or none created universe would be like. I can then compare it to my experiences. That is the process I would take, which starts with a priori thinking. Unless you're going to argue that it's a posteriori because my concepts of those premisis come from my experiences of the current universe.

Occams razor is about removing excessive complications and assumptions, by making simpler ones. It's not about removing assumption completely. I am of course questioning what point I'm arguing for. You've aknowledged that there are some situations where you cannot remove all explainations as impossible, and as such resort to rationalisation based on partial evidence.
Better to end here rather than exposing more holes in my knowledge.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Gumbie

Ok, so time and space become at the same point, in which case, the original causaily comes about at this point, or outside of time. Both God and Spontaneous Genesis should be able to have that causality in that situation.

There's no such thing as a cause of the universe. Causality is temporally and spatially related. The first moment of time is the first moment of the universe. If there had been any event before the supposed start of the universe all that would show us is that the universe began earlier than we had assumed.

My use of a priori logic is on the basis that I have no experience to compare with. I do not have experience of a universe with no creator as well as one with a creator to make judgements on the current one. Therefore I have to take some basic premises, and expand out my logic in order to define what I think a created or none created universe would be like. I can then compare it to my experiences. That is the process I would take, which starts with a priori thinking. Unless you're going to argue that it's a posteriori because my concepts of those premisis come from my experiences of the current universe.

Firstly a lack of experience i not a valid reason to invent first principles. Reasoning about other worlds as you say you do is not rational in all but the most vague senses of the word (by that I mean any conclusions will not be logically coherent). You can use your imagination and speculate but that's all that they'll be. Speculations. Secondly of course if it's dependent on your experience of the universe it's a posteriori knowledge. A priori translates as "from the former" or "before experience". It should be fairly obvious that reasoning based on experience is not reasoning before experience. If you have to reason based on what you have found the universe to be like it's by definition a posteriori.

Occams razor is about removing excessive complications and assumptions, by making simpler ones. It's not about removing assumption completely. I am of course questioning what point I'm arguing for. You've aknowledged that there are some situations where you cannot remove all explainations as impossible, and as such resort to rationalisation based on partial evidence.

It's about removing as much assumption as possible. This is the entire concept of rational (as opposed to irrational) belief.

Better to end here rather than exposing more holes in my knowledge.

If we don't expose holes in our knowledge we never learn!

[mist]

Originally Posted by Gumbie

Ok, so time and space become at the same point, in which case, the original causaily comes about at this point, or outside of time. Both God and Spontaneous Genesis should be able to have that causality in that situation.

this assumes that god exists, and therefore dictates the logical question - what created god?

this is the problem with creationalist arguments, in my opinion:
if you rely on the argument that things just don't happen and therefore there must be a god, you are unable to explain how god happens.
if you argue that god just happened, then how can you argue that the universe didn't happen in the same fashion?

obviously, using happen in the popular form rather than in the literal form, as the odds of anything happening before time existed for it to happen in seem slim.

anyway, therefore either:
the universe simply happened and god wasn't involved at all and infact doesn't exist
god simply happened and then created the universe
god simply happened and the universe simply happened, with the two events being unrelated.

given god's generally accepted policy of non interference nowadays, the only evidence which we have to decide between the three seems like hearsay at best, and hence i suspect holmes would give up and go for a pint at this point.

[Gumbie]

I mean that moment of creation is the moment of first causality from which all else follows. But both God and nothing could exist outside time. Then the moment of creation occurs, either by God from outside time, creating time and space, or just creation of time and space.

Occams razor exists under an assumption that the simplest solution is most likely to be the correct one. If you don't have enough data to prove one way or the other, you should go with whichever is logically simpler (which occam believed was simply "God did it"). But by plumping for that choice, you're assuming that because simple is more likely to be correct, that simple is correct, rather than sitting in ambiguity with no assumptions.

My point about my use of concepts in the creation of first principles being a posteriori is a reference to nothing being without experience.
If I work from a basis of 1+1=2 for the foundation of my understanding of math, I get that from knowing what 1 is. Probably by seing a single sheep or something and working out that there's not 2. But that point aside, I do not have sufficient evidence to make proper logical choice on the nature of this universe. The best I can do is set out my own premise, and develop. Even then, my lack of experience leads me to be unable to conclude either way, and occams razor can go either way. Which is a simpler situation?
An omnipotent being outside of time and space, or a random fluctuation in nothing to create the universe and time?
We are unable to reasonably conclude either way, based on the evidence we currently have, and niether can we make a rational belief, as the other option is always reasonable and possible by comparison.

Hmm, my paragraph ordering could use some work.

[Gumbie]

Originally Posted by mist

given god's generally accepted policy of non interference nowadays, the only evidence which we have to decide between the three seems like hearsay at best, and hence i suspect holmes would give up and go for a pint at this point.

Which is what I'm trying to rationally conclude

[mist]

i'm unsure how occam concluded that god being created out of nothing and god then creating the universe was simpler than the univese being created out of nothing. the prior would seem to involve two events which seem to have probability less than one, as opposed to one event which would seem to have the same probability as the first.

what social backdrop did occam conclude this against?

[Gumbie]

God always was, and God always will be to William of Occam (Hereafter refered to as woo) begotten not created.To a man of his time, just saying "God did it" is the simplest solution to everything.

[mist]

Originally Posted by Gumbie

God always was, and God always will be

assumedly, god created time along with space and therefore saying he always was doesn't really seem to be rocket science.

that asside, occam's reasoning seems suspect.

[Gumbie]

I'm not too familiar with it. I just know what I picked up while dozing in class.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Gumbie

I mean that moment of creation is the moment of first causality from which all else follows. But both God and nothing could exist outside time. Then the moment of creation occurs, either by God from outside time, creating time and space, or just creation of time and space.

If god exists outside time how could he create time? The concept of creation is temporally related. All you've done here is just change the terms you're using.

Occams razor exists under an assumption that the simplest solution is most likely to be the correct one. If you don't have enough data to prove one way or the other, you should go with whichever is logically simpler (which occam believed was simply "God did it"). But by plumping for that choice, you're assuming that because simple is more likely to be correct, that simple is correct, rather than sitting in ambiguity with no assumptions.

Obviously occam's razor isn't a deductive principle. However you cannot claim about too many assumptions being made when it makes the least possible number of assumptions. It's not that one claims it's correct, just that it's the more rational belief.

My point about my use of concepts in the creation of first principles being a posteriori is a reference to nothing being without experience.
If I work from a basis of 1+1=2 for the foundation of my understanding of math, I get that from knowing what 1 is. Probably by seing a single sheep or something and working out that there's not 2.

I think you misunderstand the point. A priori reasoning is reasoning that is necessarily true. You cannot add one and one and not get two. If you added one and one and got 3 then what you call the number three we (or I whatever) would call it the number 2. A posteriori reasoning is reasoning concerning objects in the universe. A watch is an object in the universe. And the set of objects in the universe is not the same as the universe itself (ie a set is not a member of itself).

However if you want to be a radical empircist I suppose you can. Just please don't use phrases like "a priori". It's self-contradictory.

But that point aside, I do not have sufficient evidence to make proper logical choice on the nature of this universe. The best I can do is set out my own premise, and develop. Even then, my lack of experience leads me to be unable to conclude either way, and occams razor can go either way. Which is a simpler situation?
An omnipotent being outside of time and space, or a random fluctuation in nothing to create the universe and time?
We are unable to reasonably conclude either way, based on the evidence we currently have, and niether can we make a rational belief, as the other option is always reasonable and possible by comparison.

There was no thing that created the universe, for there is no thing that is not part of the universe and there is no time except the time of the universe. It's all just gibberish. We're unable to reasonably conclude because the question doesn't make sense.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by mist

i'm unsure how occam concluded that god being created out of nothing and god then creating the universe was simpler than the univese being created out of nothing. the prior would seem to involve two events which seem to have probability less than one, as opposed to one event which would seem to have the same probability as the first.

what social backdrop did occam conclude this against?

He was a Franciscan friar. Draw from that what you will.

[Gumbie]

Why can God not exist outside time? You make it sound like God would be bound by Physics.

Was there ever a point when the universe wasn't?

[djbass]

Eggheads vs Eggheads, such discussion I've not seen since the likes of W and what makes GD worth reading. \o/

Oh, and yes I've experienced this before, and it's likely I still do but in recent times I jump straight into a microsleep so I probably don't notice it happening anymore.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Gumbie

Why can God not exist outside time? You make it sound like God would be bound by Physics.

That wasn't what I said. Even if you accept that god exists outside of time the idea that he would be able to act to create time is ridiculous. If he acted at what time did that occur? If he decided to act at what time did that occur? The concepts of acting, deciding, creation and causality are intrinsically linked to the concept of time (and space incidentally).

Was there ever a point when the universe wasn't?

I'm going to rephrase your question for you.

"Did there ever exist a time outside of time."

I think it's self-evident what the answer is.


PS Holy shit but this thread went off-topic. Sorry deepflow :(

[hyfe]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

and the obvious question, does anyone else do this?

On original topic; yeah, I do that. Always.

Whenever I close my eyes I start seeing funny shit. Colors swirving around, silhuettes of stuff in the background and lots of dots. It's pretty confusing when I'm pretty drunk, and a damn hazzle when I want to sleep sometimes.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

As regards your original question my point was you will always have more evidence pointing towards one than the other. Or you might have no evidence in which case occam's razor applies.

Or, more likely, you'd make experiments to look at the prerequisites of either conjecture.

Originally Posted by Gumbie

I however think your analogy is flawed. Both questions are of the nature "what happened on this occasion?" One is just significantly more complex than the other. Perhaps there is an error in my example as well.
"Who made this watch?"
"Who created this universe?"

Actually, there is a significant difference. When you're talking about a watch, it is always conceivable that you can trace it back to the watchmaker, and thence the processes used to construct it.

When you're talking about the universe, you can never know the method of creation, by definition. That's what makes it a metaphysical question.

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by djbass

Eggheads vs Eggheads, such discussion I've not seen since the likes of W and what makes GD worth reading. \o/

Oh, and yes I've experienced this before, and it's likely I still do but in recent times I jump straight into a microsleep so I probably don't notice it happening anymore.

Yes i must say i am impressed that people can have an argument about a subject bigger than themselves or money..

Originally Posted by Cedlind

Just stop being a cock should help..

Well theres always one exception

Originally Posted by Gumbie

But you also need vast ammounts of dense and transparent material to
a) Block the particle
b) Get excited and release this energy as visible light
c) Be transparent to allow the light to travel through it to observers on the outside (or through your eye jelly to your retina).

Parts b) and c) aren't the object. Point a) is.
The statistical chance of a particular particle blocking something like a nuetrino is very low. Therefore the chance of it happening inside something as small as your eye compared to huge water tanks is even smaller. Even if by a fluke, it did happen, it would not be enough to generate the patterns described.
In short, your point is interesting, but wrong in this instance.

Okay, a hell of a lot of stuff is based on probability. This includes the blocking of radiation. Why is lead used as shielding? Because its dense. Because its dense it has a lot more matter per unit area and thus has a higher chance of blocking radiation. Just because our eyes are not made of lead does not mean they cant block radiation. Eyes are made of matter and thus can block radiation, its just that it is extremely unlikely, not including that the earths magnetic field blocks a lot of particles from reaching us on the ground. Remember, if is probable then it is definate.

P.s. about the subject of god. Assuming 'God' as the classical image of a man with a beard looking down on us, thats almost certainly horseshit. Thats why religous groups are quietly changing their definition of God because theres no way they can say how this 'God' came to exist before the universe. People have and are spending their lives trying to understand this stuff who are a hell of a lot more intelligent than any of us, and have all the facts and equipment. Theres no chance one of us on this internet forum will be able to explain the creation of our universe.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by sniborp

Why is lead used as shielding? Because its dense.

That's only half the matter. Lead has an extremely high number of stable isotopes, so if it absorbs the radiation it won't become radioactive itself, which would be rather pointless.

People have and are spending their lives trying to understand this stuff who are a hell of a lot more intelligent than any of us, and have all the facts and equipment. Theres no chance one of us on this internet forum will be able to explain the creation of our universe.

There's no way anyone can explain the creation of the universe if the Big Bang model has any validity. And the people of GD are hardly lacking in learning, or intellect.

[Cannon_Fodder]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

And the people of GD are hardly lacking in learning, or intellect.

i never said they were lacking, just that there are people working on these sort of topics who are miles more intelligent than most if not all the people here