The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Faithkeeper]

I like the quick list idea.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Double post because it's completely unrelated to the other post.

I've got a couple questions:

Does the anthropic principle assume that there are infinitely many universes in existence?

Is there any hard evidence of the existence of other universes or is that just what is assumed in our theoretical definition of the 10 dimensions?

EDIT: Yes AltF4, epic fail on my part, thanks for the fix.

 

[AltF4]

You're thinking of the "Anthropic Principle", Keeper. And, no, it doesn't. The Anthropic Principle merely states that when observing the world, take into account the sample bias due to the fact that we are here observing it.

Like... Imagine a deep sea fish observing the world. To it, the world would seem dark and wet. But this isn't a very accurate representation of the Earth as a whole. It's only seeing the part of the Earth where deep sea fish can live.

Similarly, humans should be careful to be aware that what we see is biased by the fact that it is us who is observing it.


The "Multiple Universes" thing comes into play when trying to answer the problem of the "Fine Tuning Problem". One possible answer is that there are many universes. (Not necessarily infinite) By the Anthropic Principle, we must live in one of the universes capable of sustaining life.

 

[Dre89]

You can't have infinite universes anyway, it's impossible.

You can have multiple universes though, just not an infinite amount.

 

[blazedaces]

You can't have infinite universes anyway, it's impossible.

You can have multiple universes though, just not an infinite amount.

... what? why? For both.. why can you have multiple and why can't you have infinite?

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

because he says so, duh.

just imagine, in an alternate universe Dre. backs up his points with sources.

-_-

You can have infinite universes, especially if you subscribe to this theory.

"A generic prediction of cosmic inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions.

Accordingly, an infinite universe will contain an infinite number of Hubble volumes, all having the same physical laws and physical constants."

 

[Aesir]

I think dre just barked up the wrong tree.

Everyone sit back and watch ALT do his thing.

 

[Lore]

This isn't the universe where Dre backs up what he says? Crap, that's what I get for using the Guide.

Oh well, at least its slightly cheaper than the Encyclopedia Galactica.

Anyway, I'm sorry for not being active, but I've been practicing for the trap shooting nationals. You shouldn't expect to see me consistently post in here until around the middle of July.

 

[Aesir]

Random political thing from me;

If democrats lose less than 30 seats, it'll be a victory for them.

 

[Sucumbio]

trap shooter, eh? impressive... and you're going to nationals? wow! I'm a skeet shooter myself, never got into trap, and never got beyond regional play.

Random political thing from me;

If democrats lose less than 30 seats, it'll be a victory for them.

I'll be happy so long as Sharron Angle doesn't get anywhere. She's insane.

 

[Aesir]

I found this out today too.

Barbra Bush. (W's Daughter) thinks health care is a right, and Laura Bush (W's Wife) has recently came out in support of gay marriage and abortion.

It's funny how they're coming about this now seeing how there's no repercussions anymore.

 

[Sucumbio]

ha! I wonder if Laura and GW will go the same way as tipper and al. I don't see GW making amends, well maybe, he used Bill Clinton as a napkin lol

 

[Omnicron's Baklava Enterprises]

Oh God.

George Bush is as cool as Sarah Palin obviously.

 

[Dre89]

Hey guys just a random question, do you guys think these authors are worth reading?

I mean the whole thing collectively, not just one or two, as if you had to buy all of them or none of them lol.

I know they were influential in their times, but I'm wondering if they're too outdated be of any use. It's basically natural science, mathematics, history, politics and economics.

Volume 5 Herodotus, Thucydides
Volume 13 Plutarch
Volume 14 Tacitus
Volume 21 Machiavelli, Hobbes
Volume 23 Erasmus, Montaigne
Volume 35 Montesquieu, Rousseau
Volume 36 Adam Smith
Volume 37 Gibbon l
Volume 38 Gibbon ll
Volume 40 J.S. Mill
Volume 41 Boswell
Volume 44 Tocqueville
Volume 50 Marx, Engels
Volume 57 Veblen, Tawney, Keynes
Volume 58 Frazer, Weber, Huizinga, Levi-Strauss

Volume 9 Hippocrates, Galen
Volume 10 Euclid, Archimedes, Nicomachus
Volume 15 Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler
Volume 26 Gilbert, Galileo, Harvey
Volume 32 Newton, Huygens
Volume 42 Lavoisier, Faraday
Volume 49 Darwin
Volume 53 William James
Volume 54 Freud
Volume 56 Poincare, Planck, Whitehead, Einstein, Eddington, Bohr, Hardy, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dobzhansky, Waddington

 

[blazedaces]

Hey guys just a random question, do you guys think these authors are worth reading?

I mean the whole thing collectively, not just one or two, as if you had to buy all of them or none of them lol.

I know they were influential in their times, but I'm wondering if they're too outdated be of any use. It's basically natural science, mathematics, history, politics and economics.

Volume 5 Herodotus, Thucydides
Volume 13 Plutarch
Volume 14 Tacitus
Volume 21 Machiavelli, Hobbes
Volume 23 Erasmus, Montaigne
Volume 35 Montesquieu, Rousseau
Volume 36 Adam Smith
Volume 37 Gibbon l
Volume 38 Gibbon ll
Volume 40 J.S. Mill
Volume 41 Boswell
Volume 44 Tocqueville
Volume 50 Marx, Engels
Volume 57 Veblen, Tawney, Keynes
Volume 58 Frazer, Weber, Huizinga, Levi-Strauss

Volume 9 Hippocrates, Galen
Volume 10 Euclid, Archimedes, Nicomachus
Volume 15 Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler
Volume 26 Gilbert, Galileo, Harvey
Volume 32 Newton, Huygens
Volume 42 Lavoisier, Faraday
Volume 49 Darwin
Volume 53 William James
Volume 54 Freud
Volume 56 Poincare, Planck, Whitehead, Einstein, Eddington, Bohr, Hardy, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dobzhansky, Waddington

Short answer: Absolutely.

But man, that's going to take you a long, long, long time to read. Good luck,

-blazed

 

[adumbrodeus]

You need to have the proper mindset, they're useful as HISTORY but (and this is a major beef I have with a lot of science courses) it's really no longer useful for science.


I'd honestly say a bio of those people is probably more useful then reading their work.


For the most part anyway, a lot of Adam Smith's theories are well grounded and incredibly useful, but you'd get them in any economic's primer.

 

[GoldShadow]

I disagree, I think actually reading them gives you an appreciation (and perhaps an understanding of the minutiae) for the work you don't get by just reading a summary or something.

I enjoyed having read Darwin, Mill, Rousseau, Locke, Hobbes, Machiavelli, etc. and don't feel there's a replacement for reading the actual works.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I meant to exempt the philosophers, but I forgot... oh well. Because while philosophy develops from previous philosophy, previous philosophy is not necessarily less valid then current philosophy, but to be useful, philosophy is to be taken in conjunction with history to understand why people did the things they did, and to apply a critical view to your own. So, yes, they are worthwhile.




I see no reason to know the intricacies of Darwin's theory of evolution beyond biography because quite frankly, it was crap as far as current science is concerned. We all know this, but modern science has advanced far past it, a lot of what he has is simply wrong, why study it? To gain incite into the man himself, which while I worthy pursuit, I believe that time is better spent elsewhere unless you are reading it explicitly as a biographer.

 

[GoldShadow]

Darwin's theory is actually very similar to the modern theory, if not identical (minus the stuff about genetics, of course, which didn't really exist at the time). I was surprised by how much he gleaned given the time period in which he discovered/wrote all of it.

 

[Evil Eye]

Thomas Hobbes disappointed me. Not because I didn't like his philosophy -- it was some of the more fascinating stuff I've studied. I just despised his writing style; run-on sentence after run-on sentence can break your brain when it is a string of metaphors and philosophizin'. Especially when you're a caffeinated college student up late.

 

[Crimson King]

God, I hate American politics.

Obama is on his 4th trip of the
gulf since the rig went down in April. People are criticizing him. Bush got bashed for being to hands off with the hurricanes. I don't care about presidents, but can they do anything right?

Also, I can't ride jet skis for my trip to
Gulf Shores. BP, there will be blood.

 

[Aesir]

I'm confused are you bashing Obama for doing something? Or for not doing enough? Or are you defending him? I'm a bit confused.

 

[GoldShadow]

I believe he's bashing the American people and the way they view politics/presidents, ie Bush was criticized for being too detached from certain big events (like Katrina), whereas Obama is being criticized for being too involved (like the BP oil fiasco).

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't care about presidents, but can they do anything right?

Nope, Presidents can't win for losing, so long as real suffering is happening and the President hasn't been able to waive his magic wand and make it all better they will take the fall.

But that's why we vote for them in the first place. "Vote for me, I will be the better fall guy."

Notice his head of gray getting grayer? heh. He's human afterall. I'll commend him for taking this long to show real signs of wear and tear.

And people should really get off his nuts, there's nothing he can actually do to stop the oil leak but what he's done, and if he didn't make all those trips people would ***** he wasn't showing enough interest. Plus he's committed a huge number of national guard. yeah, he's on this, it's BP that sucks (sorry to hear about gulf shores - we're going to a chlorine wonderland ourselves, for this reason, gulf island water park).

 

[KrazyGlue]

Dre, those are all good ones to read. If I had to pick only a few of those, it would probably be Adam Smith, John Locke, and Niccolo Machiavelli. I enjoyed all of their works. Also I haven't read any of Schrodinger's work, but I think it would be fascinating (or at least interesting lol) to read about the Schrodinger's Cat experiment more in-depth.

But yeah, if you're reading all of that it will take a long time lol. You'll probably learn a ton though. Good luck.

I believe he's bashing the American people and the way they view politics/presidents, ie Bush was criticized for being too detached from certain big events (like Katrina), whereas Obama is being criticized for being too involved (like the BP oil fiasco).

If this is what CK means, I agree with him. It all comes down to the fact that the american people like to blame their president when bad things happen, whether they have much to do with it or not.

 

[Crimson King]

Yeah, while I don't support Obama, I have to commend him on what he has been doing with the area. Though it has already backfired, shutting down drilling for six months was bold. I could commend Bush on a few things as well.

It's just the notion that every time we have a serious issue, instead of looking at it as grey, they keep their partisan glasses on.

 

[Dre89]

Thanks for the input guys. The reason why I ask is because they are part of 60 volume set of books covering great authors of all topics, fiction, philosophy and religion and the stuff I showed you.

The reason why the book set is so valuable is because it comes with two incredibly in-depth cross-referencing books. For example, you go the page for 'Good and Evil', then it gives you all these sub-headings like 'nature of evil' 'God and evil' etc. then under each one it tells you who wrote on that topic and what pages it is found in those books.

Obviously the philosophy part is where I'd get the most gain, but I'd like to read the other stuff (especially if I have to buy it as well) just for general knowledge. I'm just cautious about buying the whole set if the politics and science is too outdated to be of any benefit.

Give me five years and I'll be carving up DH debates with my out of date scientific and political knowledge lol.

 

[Mewter]

Give me five years and I'll be carving up DH debates with my out of date scientific and political knowledge lol.

I actually laughed at this.

Have fun reading those, Dre.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Darwin's theory is actually very similar to the modern theory, if not identical (minus the stuff about genetics, of course, which didn't really exist at the time). I was surprised by how much he gleaned given the time period in which he discovered/wrote all of it.

But, if you're looking for scientific knowledge, you'd receive far greater benefits going for something that explains the genetic basis as well at a similar level of depth.


Unfortunately, it gives you an inaccurate picture, at the very least if you aren't incredibly familiar with the topic already, you will need a text to reference so you don't let errors of the time become entrenched.

 

[Aesir]

I believe he's bashing the American people and the way they view politics/presidents, ie Bush was criticized for being too detached from certain big events (like Katrina), whereas Obama is being criticized for being too involved (like the BP oil fiasco).

While I'm a huge supporter of democracies and republics and the like, I still think Churchill was right when he said; The best argument against Democracy is 5 minutes with the average voter"

Americans are just pissed off at something and they're looking for anything to bash the face of the federal government.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

While I'm a huge supporter of democracies and republics and the like, I still think Churchill was right when he said; The best argument against Democracy is 5 minutes with the average voter"

Americans are just pissed off at something and they're looking for anything to bash the face of the federal government.

It's also really sad that some the purported anti-government people (Tea-Baggers) are really just people who a) feed off of base emotions & b) are really just people who aren't happy their government isn't in power.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

It's also really sad that some the purported anti-government people (Tea-Baggers) are really just people who a) feed off of base emotions & b) are really just people who aren't happy their government isn't in power.

I'm wondering if they're pro-government while their government is in power. That would be utterly hypocritical.

 

[Lore]

I'm wondering if they're pro-government while their government is in power. That would be utterly hypocritical.

Then they find something that's wrong with THAT government, and they just rinse and repeat after that.

I'm thinking about getting into philosophy, etc.; what would be a good thing to read first?

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm wondering if they're pro-government while their government is in power. That would be utterly hypocritical.

Tea party members are a mishmash of neo-cons, traditional right-wing conservatives, libertarians, and others that would mainly fit under "I hate Obama for X reason." Despite being fairly... schizophrenic in their stance, the so-called tea party generally embodies anti-"big" government, or at least tries to minimize the state. If they were to succeed in their uprising, they'd celebrate it, but not necessarily become pro-government, as it would be antithetical to their cause (which is what you were saying, but just to put a finer point on it )

I'm thinking about getting into philosophy, etc.; what would be a good thing to read first?

Try A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell

 

[Lore]

Try A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell

I just read the first chapter online, and even though there was a decent amount of bias, I really liked it.

I'll definitely try to get it this weekend.

 

[Deleted member]

I just read the first chapter online, and even though there was a decent amount of bias, I really liked it.

I'll definitely try to get it this weekend.

No! No! No!

Do NOT start with that book. Start with Sophie's World, which is a fantastic novel that will teach you volumes about philosophy (Ancient Greeks -> Modern) while giving you a great plot with a fascinating twist. Readreadreadreadread this book.

Author Jostein Gaarder. Probably my most cherished book of all time (and I love the **** out of Harry Potter)

Actually, my sig is from the book. I'll post it.

 

[Aesir]

Just read HP lovecraft and you'll probably want to blow your head off.

Atleast that's what people tell me.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'm bored, I wanna challenge somebody to debate...


How about Dre., I could do Devil's advocate or something that I disagree with him on.


We talked about this before, but debate challenges never actually materialized, we could do a judging panel and everything.


You guys down?

 

[blazedaces]

I'm bored, I wanna challenge somebody to debate...


How about Dre., I could do Devil's advocate or something that I disagree with him on.


We talked about this before, but debate challenges never actually materialized, we could do a judging panel and everything.


You guys down?

Sounds like an idea to me... Dre always said he wished he could have a solid 1v1 with someone because he felt it was always more like 10v1...

-blazed

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The question is, who's going to judge it? Dre thinks everyone's biased, so any verdict we give he may not accept.