tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post4120330789785735584..comments2024-01-25T13:46:11.967-06:00Comments on The Bronze Blog: Doggerel #184: "There's No Such Thing as 'Probably' in Science!"Ryan Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14750814560493466382noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-60228504593738912422009-06-20T10:18:57.645-05:002009-06-20T10:18:57.645-05:00What is Operation Black and why don't you tell...What is Operation Black and why don't you tell us what you think. And are you saying the UK Telegraph is a comic - the wording of that sentence is a little confusing.<br /><br />The UK Telegraph is, in fact, a newspaper (though some would debate the accuracy of that statement).<br /><br />I repeat earlier calls that you seek serious medical help Debra.<br /><br />And to save you some time in the future - if you read it in a work of fiction no we probably don't think it is actual evidence of a real world conspiracy or event.Jimmy Bluehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03303271166058408065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-22023490945731378592009-06-20T03:06:26.159-05:002009-06-20T03:06:26.159-05:00And once again debra pops in to remind us that, no...And once again debra pops in to remind us that, no, she <i>doesn't</i> know the difference between reality and fiction, and she's perfectly happy that way, thank you very much.<br /><br />Hey, remember when a terrorist blew up Stamford, Connecticut, and then all those metahumans fought it out in the streets?<br /><br />Neither do I, because it was <i>fucking fiction</i>.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-18847405582706211042009-06-20T00:02:33.623-05:002009-06-20T00:02:33.623-05:00What do you think of Operation Black? Is the comi...What do you think of Operation Black? Is the comic, the UK Telegraph, an alarm to warn the world of catastrophic events? Or is it the biggest public relations coup ever for an upcoming movie or a TV series?debrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04062941456175687962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-50970585566848393372009-06-18T18:20:47.096-05:002009-06-18T18:20:47.096-05:00With perfect knowledge, there is no need for logic...With perfect knowledge, there is no need for logic; we need logic because we have imperfect knowledge.Ergo Ratiohttp://generalnotions.talkislam.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-4143438537665072092009-05-02T12:20:00.000-05:002009-05-02T12:20:00.000-05:00Thing is, I'm not even sure that perfect knowledge...Thing is, I'm not even sure that perfect knowledge is compatible with logic. Not even in a 'you don't need to reason anything out' sense, but in the sense that all knowledge must be consistent. As such, perfect knowledge actually contradicts most forms of logic, from the standpoint of proof.<br /><br />And trying to work out the implications of that makes my head hurt.MWchasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08195851187187771113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-25376122638145841652009-05-02T11:24:00.000-05:002009-05-02T11:24:00.000-05:00I've always wondered if omniscience contained only...I've always wondered if omniscience contained only true things, or all things true and false--or if future knowledge contained the knowledge of all possible futures. <br /><br />There would be a way, I think, to test the omniscience claim to a reasonable degree of certainty. I mean, if you kept predicting things that were going to happen with perfect accuracy, eventually you could claim "omniscience" with some confidence, with the (scientific) caveat that new information (such as an unfulfilled prediction) could falsify the claim.Tom Fosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13796424725228769265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-25810582527744825652009-04-26T22:01:00.000-05:002009-04-26T22:01:00.000-05:00Even if you woke up with the additional note "you'...<B>Even if you woke up with the additional note "you're omniscient" in your head, you still have to wonder if that note is accurate and how you'd know that to be the case.</B><BR>Unless you simply define omniscience as containing the certainty that you actually do know everything. So you think you know everything, and believe without question that it is true.<br /><br />In which case, most 15-year-olds and all religious fundamentalists are omniscient.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-12263095802054596492009-04-25T00:55:00.000-05:002009-04-25T00:55:00.000-05:00I'll add that even "omniscient in the first place"...I'll add that even "omniscient in the first place" won't get you perfect knowledge. I don't mean the definition of the word omniscient, I just mean that you've got to wonder exactly how you'd ever know you were omniscient. If you woke up with a mega dump of knowledge crammed into your head, how'd you know you knew everything? Further, how would you know that any of that knowledge is even accurate in the first place? Even if you woke up with the additional note "you're omniscient" in your head, you still have to wonder if that note is accurate and how you'd know that to be the case.<br /><br />In the end, you'd need to test each and every bit of knowledge in your head and even then you'd only confirm that data as accurately as the test. You're stuck with science no matter WHAT you think you know.<br /><br />This is one of the big problems I have with god, any god with omniscience anyway. Not "how do I know god is omniscient" so much as "how does god know he's omniscient?". There is simply no practical way such a being could know. Even an omnipotent one would be limited by having to confirm it all through experimentation, and even with an infinite number of "test universes" at it's disposal, it couldn't ever prove it all absolutely to itself, though it may approach zero, and that still leaves the fact that it didn't just HAVE omniscience by default, but had to earn it through observation and experimentation, rendering all the previous built in knowledge pointless in leu of what it later learned. Further, there's always the possibility of something "outside" it's awareness that it either never thought of or is simply outside it's scope of existance. While effectively meaningless in terms of scientific results, it does render the idea of omniscience meaningless.Dark Jaguarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-61248103487021506612009-04-24T18:22:00.000-05:002009-04-24T18:22:00.000-05:00So many hyperlinks... should have sent a robot...M...<A HREF="http://doggerelreference.pbwiki.com/Index" REL="nofollow">So many hyperlinks... should have sent a robot...</A>Mathematics is a tricky thing, actually. Most results are based on First Order Predicate Logic, which is potentially self-contradictory. Mathematicians just try really hard to avoid the pathological constructions.<br /><br />There's also the fact that sometimes there are unexamined assumptions. Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri tried to prove the fifth postulate, accidentally formulated hyperbolic geometry, and decided that it was an illegitimate geometry because it was 'icky' (paraphrase mine).MWchasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08195851187187771113noreply@blogger.com