Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Asimov

  • Birthday 05/22/1984

Contact Methods

  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Sam Harris

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Asimov's Achievements


Collaborator (7/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges



  1. Hehe, I'm still kickin! Haven't really been into the forum scene these days. Been focusing on work and video games!

  2. That poster is either stupid or has never read any rebuttals of the cosmological argument if he makes a claim like that. One only needs to look towards theories proposed by physicists such as tegmark, bojowald, veneziano, linde or steinhardt and turok to understand that there are many propositions. The laws of physics do not necessitate cause and effect, as quantum mechanics has demonstrated. You have to understand that time isn't an empirical phenomenon. It's a concept of measurement we use to distinguish between events, and is based off of concepts in the real world. Much like the absolute meter is the 'distance travelled by light in free space in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second' (source: International Bureau of Weights and Measures), a second is the 'the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.[1]' (source International System of Units). We have used these measurements that are useful to us, but they are abstract mathematics and don't necessarily apply to the real-world. So, what I'm really saying is that time cannot "begin", because it isn't a thing. Time and space are coordinate functions, like longitude and latitude on a globe, that are used to denote the relative position of an object to other things.
  3. I saw that he made a comment regarding "would you rather that evil is just there, or that it exists for a purpose by God" Uhhh...I would be highly worried if a God who created everything felt that evil was a necessary aspect of his creation. You should be too.
  4. Yes, I do believe that's the end of it. Face it: You may want closure and universal justice, but wanting something does not make it so. Ok. So if a close family member of yours was the victim in such a heinous crime and the killer was not caught ever, you would be alright with that? You wouldn't want any justice to come down on that person. That's retarded, of course I would want justice. My desire is irrelevant to the facts of reality in that some people NEVER get caught. Fabricating a concept of "eternal justice" to placate myself and others isn't really dealing with the issue but concocting a fantasy-land to cope.
  5. She's a fucking gagillionaire, what the hell does she know about "suffering"?
  6. Seriously guys, it's one thing for one person and another thing for other people. For you and Vigile and in a lot of people's cases certain foods or the way they're prepared don't agree with them. For others it's exercise. Exercise isn't a bad thing and neither is eating healthily. Marty I'm amazed that you claim to be so lazy yet you go to the trouble of making your own ketchup...lol
  7. That's a new one to me. But still when I say matter while talking about all this early universe stuff, I just mean existing stuff rather than the whole mass volume schtick. 'Sides if I remember right most of the universe isn't "matter" anyway. But thanks for the clarification. We're not necessarily talking about early universe, Doc. It is proposed that the universe is only 4% Hadronic matter, some 20 odd percent is dark matter and the rest is dark energy.
  8. Ramen! I think a lot of the problem is that everyone wants a magic answer for this...and there really isn't one. It's all based on the individual and their body chemistry. My magic answer is albuterol.
  9. You haven't offered evidence, you've merely asserted it as true a priori. You've made a naked assertion, I've merely rejected your claim and pointed out a causeless event. The decay of individual radioactive isotopes is causeless and occurs randomly. This is empirical data, Kevin. For particular physical facts, one takes a mathematical schema to describe such physical facts. So, to talk about a number of books or a set of books is to detail entailments and theorems in the relevant mathematics. For example, consider what one gets from adding two apples. In reality, one is not adding the apples, but taking the union of the sets that we take to correspond to the apples in question. Addition, subtraction, and sets are, after all, mathematical. If you're talking about a physical fact, such as an apple and applying a number of apples or a set of apples, you are taking a mathematical schema to describe your physical apples. Mathematically there is no difference between 7 numbers and 7 apples because both are mathematical descriptions. If you were to take your apples and add em together, your are not, in reality adding the apples. You are taking the union of the sets that we take to correspond to the apples. The notion of a set, addition or subtraction are all mathematical, and all infinities are abstract because they are mathematical entities, by definition. It's contradictory, therefore, to accept the concepts within set theory, yet reject their application. You're using words that don't apply to the analogy and are therefore irrelevant. There is no completion because you have are employing an infinite amount of time to count and infinite amount of numbers. It's a continuous exercise, the notion of an infinity with a beginning and/or an end is contradictory. Your point is? A moment is an arbitrary concept, there's no beginning or end but what we apply. We don't arrive at moments because a moment isn't a definable fact. You traverse an infinity of moments between any given moment. A second is just an arbitrary demarcation of time, which we define arbitrarily. We can divide every moment of time infinitely, yet you appear to be able to exist. K7> Replace the seats/people with moments or days and you'll see the point. No, I don't see the point. There is no last person in an infinite set just as there is no last moment in an infinite amount of time. You're not pointing out any absurdities or contradictions. You'll have to employ something a little more than just the negation of another concept. Unless you're trying to employ a not-so-clever bait and switch in regards to infinities. We are speaking about Cantorian Set Theory, therefore the infinities employed in Set Theory necessarily will apply to God. If you're claiming that an actual infinite is impossible, then it is impossible. You can't have your cake and eat it too. 1. The furthest we can mathematically and empirically define is not t=0, so to say that "time began" at the Big Bang isn't exactly right. As far as we know, we cannot go beyond t=10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang. As for matter, the initial state of the Big Bang is proposed to have been a high energy density. There aren't a whole number of theories which propose that it came into existence at the moment of the big bang. Of course, there are a number of competing theories that extrapolate from what we know such as Tegmark's Infinite Sea or Venezeano's String Theory or Linde's Chaotic Inflation Theory, or Bojowalds loop quantum gravity, or Steinhardts and Turok's Brane Theory. And there's no major consensus on a number of concepts. So what you're arguing is fairly outdated...like, 70's outdated. All we can definitively say is that the universe was in an incredibly hot and dense state some 13.7 billion years ago. 2. I can't prove deductively that all minds have brains. What I can point out is that you have no example of a mind that exists independent of the brain nor do you have any evidence. Whilst my claim is inductive, there contains no counter-examples that you can provide to contradict what I've said. Furthermore, you haven't defined what a mind is if it is independent of the brain. You've merely stated it is consciousness that can act and think, but that's not providing a definition. Furthermore, you're arguing for timeless causality, which is a contradiction in terms.
  10. I work in the fitness industry; I do personal training and coaching. I also work with lifestyle management in areas that one can control such as eating habits (among other habits). I can tell you straight up that some things work better for some people than others. The reason why people are fat depends on a number of factors. It could be hormonal (either stress induced or organs aren't producing a proper hormone balance), it can be related to eating habits (not getting the proper level of macro nutrients for their body, snacking too much, going out too much, eating too many heavily processed foods, eating too little), it can be related to exercise (too much exercise, too little exercise, no exercise), and it can also be mental in nature (no motivation, low self-esteem, bad body image, anorexia nervosa or anorexia athletica or bulimia). So of course studies are going to find supportive factors for anything and anyone, and people will generally look at those studies and accept them in order to bolster their opinion that they are incapable of losing weight. Biologically and genetically, nobody is meant to be obese. Some people are capable of gaining more fat genetically because it was required of them to survive...that does not mean that it's beyond their control. What is really needed is individualized lifestyle analysation and standard guess and check.
  11. Really? You mean such things as the decay of an individual isotope? Those are impossible? I never knew. The very fact that you just take it as a given without even proving your assertion renders the argument null and void. Not everything requires a reason for its existence. Kevin, you appear to be willy nilly adding in concepts that have no bearing on set theory. At no point does set theory make ANY distinction. Mathematics is, by definition, abstract so your dichotomizing between abstract and real is unnecessary and suspect. Given an infinite amount of time to count, one could count all numbers. Your point is a red herring. Except this isn't the case with time, because time is continuous. We never arrive at a moment in time. Yes, never! What's your point? Then you'll have to explain what you mean by infinite, Kevin. 1) Your arguing using outdated cosmology. 2) All minds have brains.
  12. My goodness. Cliche much?
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.