Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Erasmus

Pages: [1] 2
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Inflation and the Federal Reserve
« on: June 10, 2007, 02:52:24 AM »
So, this is the stuff I want to talk about nowadays.

Everybody has heard of inflation.  It means that things seem to be getting more expensive over time, uniformly throughout the economy.  In other words, money is worth less than it used to be.  Last time I checked, the general cost of stuff in the U.S. is 3% more in any given year than it was the previous year, or, money was worth 3% more last year than this year.

I know that inflation happens in Canada and that it's also about 3% every year.

Now comes the part that I'm pretty sure about but am ready to be corrected or argued against.

In the U.S., inflation happens because the Federal Reserve ("the Fed") puts money into circulation.  There are two ways of doing this: first, they can buy government securities ("T-bills").  Second, they can print money.

In the U.S., the government likes inflation because it is the means by which the government operates; i.e., pays its bills.  The U.S. treasury doesn't actually have enough money to pay its bills; instead, it creates money out of thin air, thereby inflating the economy.  Inflation isn't enough to cover all of government spending and therefore the U.S. experiences a deficit every year.

Allegedly, due to inflation, the U.S. dollar is worth 1/25th its value in 1913, the date of the creation of the Fed.  (This drop in value corresponds to inflation of 3.48% per year, on average).  Prior to that, fluctuations in the value of the dollar were caused by fluctuations in the supply of gold.

Aside from permitting deficit spending, the other function of the Fed is to set the target interest rates on loans.  To do so, the Fed can inflate the economy (causing interest rates to drop), or tinker with a variety of the parameters in the Federal Reserve system.  Fluctuations in interest rates have a serious effect on the economy: when rates drop, it becomes easier for people to get loans, which makes it easier to spend money, which is good for business.  When rates go up, yadda yadda, businesses get hurt.  Wall Street is like a well-trained dog at the heel of the Fed, jumping at a kind word and recoiling from a harsh one.

The Fed is accountable to no one and transcripts from meetings of its Board of Governors are confidential for five years.  They do not discuss their reasoning when they change the rates.  In a very real sense, our economy is not free; it is controlled by the Fed.  The current chairman of the Board at the Fed recently apologized for causing the Great Depression -- ironic, because the goal of the Federal Reserve system is to make sure that growth can always happen unimpeded and to prevent recessions and crashes.

Last but not least, the Fed is not a part of our government.  Its Board is appointed by the president, but they do not answer to him, and the banks which make up the Federal Reserve system are all privately owned.

Now I have some questions:

Why do we need the Federal Reserve?  It has not shown itself to be a useful service; the market is its own best regulator, and the minting of money is, according to the Constitution, the sole purview of the federal government.  The Fed does more harm than good.

Why do we have inflation?  Inflation is a mechanism by which the government steals from the people.  When the Fed prints money, all the money in circulation goes down in value by a certain amount.  That value is now held by the Fed.

Why do countries that do not engage in deficit spending (like Canada) have inflation?

And here's a seemingly-unrelated question: Why is there an income tax in the United States?

2
The Lounge / Stop metabolising or I'll turn you in for patent violation
« on: February 13, 2007, 10:12:19 AM »
From this article in the New York Times:

Quote
You can’t patent snow, eagles or gravity, and you shouldn’t be able to patent genes, either. Yet by now one-fifth of the genes in your body are privately owned.


Seriously.  I mean, SERIOUSLY.   Wtf.

3
The Lounge / Omg radical YouTube (& Google Video) thread
« on: December 20, 2006, 10:46:19 AM »
I'm regularly seeing new threads pop up that link to awesome YouTube videos... how 'bout we just have one thread that they all go in?

For all the jugglers and wanna-be jugglers out there:

4
The Lounge / Tony vs. Paul
« on: December 17, 2006, 02:11:14 PM »


These guys are badass.

5
Flat Earth Believers / FE vs. RE radio debate
« on: December 13, 2006, 10:46:10 AM »
Hello gents.  I wouldn't normally post here uninvited, but we have been asked if any FEer would like to debate an REer on the radio.  To me, this sounds like a great opportunity for the Society.  Any takers?

The radio show's host has made the request in the General Discussion forum.  The author's username is "infidelguy", apparently of www.infidelguy.com fame.  He has hosted a variety of debates between capable debaters before on topics such as the existence of god, evolution, vegetarianism, et al.

6
The Lounge / SRB separation video
« on: December 10, 2006, 11:49:01 AM »


7:28 video (with sound) of SRB separation (not sure which shuttle mission it was from).  You can actually hear the schute deploy.  Ends with ocean splashdown.  Fascinating to watch; very reminiscent of 2001.

Fake, of course, but fascinating :)

*edit* can anybody identify the nearby object (?) in the water at the end, just before splashdown?  Is it the other rocket?

7
This Forum is an information repository.  At least, that's what I assume from the name.  This means that if you are not posting relevant information in this thread, as laid out in the Forum's description, I'm just going to delete it without a second thought.  Also, I think this is such an easy rule to follow that I won't be interested in anybody's explanation of why their poll about whether the Earth is "1)  A pyramid; 2)  Made of cheese; or 3)  !LOL!" constitutes "information" that needs to be archived, and will ignore such pleas.  Sorry!

8
The Lounge / Dresden Codak
« on: December 07, 2006, 12:37:36 AM »
An awesome comic strip that has just been referred to me: http://dresdencodak.com/index.htm.  It is right up your alley.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Inside the Earth and Below
« on: November 21, 2006, 01:58:11 PM »
It's worth noting at this point that Rowbotham posits the interior of the Earth to be hollow and filled with intensely raging fires.  The Earth itself is essentially a vast island floating on an even vaster sea.  The fires are hot enough to keep the Earth buoyant on the sea.

Kinda looks like this:

Note, no ice wall.  Rowbotham says,
Quote from: "Rowbotham"
IT has been demonstrated that the earth is a plane, the surface-centre of which is immediately underneath the star called "Polaris," and the extremities of which are bounded by a vast region of ice and water and irregular masses of land, which bear evidence of Plutonic or fiery action and origin.


In other words, there's just a vast sea with some ice and land in it.  Nothing here about an ice wall that I can find.  If somebody can find some references to it, please let me know.

10
The Lounge / US Citizens to be Required ''Clearance'' to Leave USA
« on: November 04, 2006, 11:22:36 AM »
The Department of Homeland Security wants to require that all people, including U.S. citizens, get prior explicit permission from the DHS before crossing U.S. borders on a carrier of any kind.  In other words, by default, everybody would be on the no-fly list until otherwise specified.  This is supposed to start in January.

For more information see http://sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3023 and http://www.papersplease.org/wp/

11
Flat Earth Q&A / So much to research, so little time
« on: October 26, 2006, 04:10:51 PM »
I have a question primarily to the two users who are different people Dionysios and Lord Byron: guys, seriously, where do you get the time to do all that research?  Even between the two of you that's a lot of data you've collected...

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Tides due to vibrating Earth
« on: October 20, 2006, 10:52:26 AM »
It occurs to me that if the surface of the Earth is a slowly vibrating membrane with its boundary at the ice wall fixed, this could explain tides.  The function describing the vibration would a superposition of waves dominated by something like A/2 sin(θ + π t/(12 hrs))× J_α(r), where A is the height of the highest tide and J_α is a Bessel function of the first kind with α>0.

Basically, this would look like a saddle-shaped surface that rotates throughout the day and possibly (due to smaller-scale fluctuations) vibrates up and down as well.  Mind you it's not the surface itself that's rotating; just the crests and troughs of the "wave".  The two crests would always be on opposite sides of the Earth and would have low tides; the two troughs would be 90° out of phase with the crests and would have high tides (since the water would naturally flow downhill away from the crests.)

The wave itself would of course lose energy over time, but it is possible that tidal gravitational forces from the moon, or some other attractive force between the Earth and Moon, might drive the oscillation, keeping the tides going.  This would of course explain the observed synchrony between the tides and the position of the Moon.

If I can find or produce a video or diagram, I will be sure to post it.

13
The Lounge / Qualia!
« on: October 15, 2006, 07:59:28 PM »
What are they?  Why do we have them?  Who else has them?  Are mine the same as yours?

These questions haunt students of philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence.  Do you have the answers?

This thread is dedicated to the discussion of the phenomenon of qualia (single quale).  Qualia are those nasty things that most people will admit to having whenever they have a conscious experience, and that most people are pretty sure that some things with sensory apparata -- digital cameras, for instance -- lack.  Most progressive discussions of what consciousness is usually boil down to a discussion of what qualia are.  They are the subjective nature of conscious experience.  When I look at the red bandana on my kitchen table, I don't simply know it's there, and that I'm seeing it; I also have some sort of image in my head that has this feature of redness.  On the other hand it seems unlikely that when a digital camera "sees" the same bandana, it has the same conscious experience of redness.

Cameras, no, but what about other animals?  Apes?  Dogs?  Mice?  Bats? Iguanas?  Birds?  Fish?  Flies and cockroaches?  Do they have the same sorts of subjective experiences as we do?  Do they have qualia?

What about you?  When you see the red bandana, is the "redness" that you perceive the same as the redness that I perceive?  Maybe my "redness" is more like your "blueness".

Qualia can be thought of as the extra stuff that we still wouldn't understand even if we had a complete scientific theory of the mind.  Science seems to address questions about objective observables but qualia are by definition not objectively observable... or are they?

What do you think?  Do you think science will ever be able to tell us why red looks the way it does, or whether it's possible for a machine to experience redness?  Can we ever answer Nagel's question, "What is it like to be a bat?"

14
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Micro- and Macroevolution
« on: October 13, 2006, 06:14:40 PM »
In light of recent and ongoing debate, am I interested to know what exactly the difference between microevolution and macroevolution is.  In other words, I am interested in knowing exacly what it is that IDers believe evolution cannot accomplish.

I am not interested in any list of examples of macroevolution.

I am also not interested in the definition, "macroevolution is change from one kind to another kind," unless you can also define exactly what a kind is, and more importantly, how to tell whether two individuals are members of the same kind.

Defintions that are loose, informal, or wishy-washy in any way will be rejected.  Definitions that pass the formality test will also be subject to tests for consistency and completeness.

So, what exatly is it that evolution cannot do?

15
Technology, Science & Alt Science / "The Final Theory"
« on: October 01, 2006, 02:41:28 PM »
Has anybody heard of this book The Final Theory, by Mark McCutcheon?  There's some great pseudoscience in here.  Here's the website.

It's all about how modern science is way off the mark.  It claims to "set the clock back to the time of Newton" and then rederive all of science from there.  It's especially proud of a new theory of gravity it has come up with that takes advantage of "previously ignored atomic principles".  Fun stuff.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / DID THEY??
« on: September 27, 2006, 09:20:45 AM »


The Utahraptor understands.

17
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Oddities in Biblical Literalism
« on: September 21, 2006, 12:29:34 AM »
This thread is devoted to some seemingly inexplicable issues that arise when you try to take the Bible literally.

What I'm wondering, for starters, is who Cain married in Genesis 4, before Adam and Eve had any daughters.  After God made Cain a "fugitive and a vagabond," he took his wife (?) and went to the land of Nod (who gave the land of Nod that name, btw?) to build a city.  Cain was worried that people who found him would slay him -- what people was he afraid of?  Nobody else had been born yet.

I think the only way out of this is not to interpret the Bible literally.  Same goes for other issues (such as the ordering of creation).  Thoughts?  Other issues?

18
The Lounge / Pope Benedict's comment about Islam
« on: September 16, 2006, 11:33:25 AM »
From a NY Times article:

Quote from: "The New York Times"
ROME, Sept. 15 — Pope Benedict XVI drew rising anger on Friday over comments he made Tuesday about Islam, as Muslim leaders around the world accused him of dividing religions and demanded an apology.

...

And emotion spilled over in Turkey, which Benedict is scheduled to visit in November, as a top official in the Islamic-rooted ruling party said that the pope was “going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini.”

...

In a major speech on Tuesday at Regensburg University, Benedict delivered a long, scholarly address on reason and faith in the West. But he began his speech by recounting a conversation on the truths of Christianity and Islam that took place between a 14th-century Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, and a Persian scholar.

“The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,” the pope said.

“He said, I quote, ‘Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,’ ” the pope said.


Firstly, wow, double standard here.  I demand that Muslim leaders make a personal apology for saying that America is evil.

Then, I demand they get a grip.  The Pope quoted somebody else -- a theological discussion -- part of which was opinion (the "evil and inhuman" bit) and part of which may or may be fact (the "command to spread by the sword" bit).  Take note that the Muslim leaders don't deny the truth of the emperor's statements!  They are just outraged that anybody would dare to repeat them.  That is the behavior of every tyrant -- outrage against criticism.

I would appreciate anybody's thoughts and feelings on this.

p.s.  this author is not a Catholic.

19
The Lounge / Goodbye, Pluto!
« on: August 24, 2006, 12:15:06 PM »
It was great while it lasted!

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Kepler's demon
« on: August 12, 2006, 09:38:42 AM »
Hi folks!  Just wanted to offer some clarification on a claim Dionysios is making in the FE forum:

Quote from: "Dionysios"
Johannes Kepler, who founded modern astronomy and particularly the elliptical form of heliocentrism which is the basis of modern heliocentrical astronomy, claimed to have conducted astral travel to the moon in the company of a demon who revealed to him the alleged secrets of the stars.


This is, unfortunately, a misrepresentation of the facts.

From http://library.thinkquest.org/C0126520/chronothink/lite1609ad.htm: Kepler wrote a fantasy story about a person who dreams he goes to the moon.  Apparently this is not an uncommon technique in academia at the time.  Exposition through storytelling goes back at least to Plato, and I'm sure farther.

Kepler was not a loony.

21
Flat Earth Q&A / "Earth Not A Globe" by Samuel Rowbotham
« on: April 30, 2006, 01:11:36 AM »
Samuel Rowbotham founded the Zetetic Society on the creed that the Earth is flat and published a book, Earth Not A Globe describing his evidence.  It rarely gets talked about on this website and nobody seems to know much of what it says, and this thread aims to correct that.

From time to time, I will post refutations of or comments on Rowbotham's ideas.  Anybody else should feel free to do the same, but let's try to focus on one thing at a time.  I'll be starting with his method for determining the distance from the Earth to the Sun in my next post.

If nobody else is interested, that's fine with me.  I'm personally hoping that Dionysios will chime in with his thoughts on what I have to say.  I've commented about Rowbotham's arguments before and have heard no replies.

Here we go!

-Erasmus

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Signals from space
« on: April 30, 2006, 01:03:33 AM »
Chaltier's comment in the Everything Else forum concerning the possibility that the photograph of Earth from Voyager might have been faked got me thinking: isn't it possible that the photograph, transmitted by radio back to Earth, could have been picked up by ham radio operators?

Maybe not.  Maybe it requries a ginormous receiving dish because of the weakness of the signal.  However, not all signal-transmitting objects in space are billions of miles away: some are in orbit (say REers).  In fact, it's quite popular among ham radio operators and amateur astronomers to turn an antenna towards these things and listen in.

Why is this interesting?  Well, if two or more receivers on the surface of the Earth simultaneously receive a signal on a very tight bearing -- like satellite TV, if the (directional) antenna is not oriented just right, the signal disappears -- then the position of the transmitting device can be computed.  In particular, the distance between the Earth and the transmitting device can be determined.  Of course, there's a database somewhere with these numbers in it; but doing the two-receiver experiment would be a nice validation.

The question then becomes: how high can the transmitting devices get before it's implausible to suggest that they are on the tops of towers or something like that?  If it turns out, for example, that they are over 40,000 km away (and REers claim that some satellites are this far away), what's the FE response?  Note that this is farther away than the sun is supposed to be in the FE model (the idiocy of which claim may be discussed in another thread).

So this is a call to all ham radio operators and satellite TV watchers out there: let's collaborate and measure distances to stuff.

-Erasmus

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Ways of knowing
« on: April 13, 2006, 11:49:41 PM »
It's been several months since I've attacked this topic head-on, unsuccessfully.  Now I'd like to take another stab at it, I hope with the help of Chaltier, who appears to have given this sort of thing some thought, but of course all are welcome to join in.

This thread will not concern itself with determining the geometry of the Earth.

Instead, I want to hear people's thoughts -- not on what we know -- but on how we know it.  There's been a lot of controversy in the media recently over Intelligent Design in public schools, but it's nothing new.  What's new is that ID proponents want to make the claim that faith is just another "way of knowing", just like science is a way of knowing.  I hope to argue in this thread that the two ought not be equivocated in this fashion.

To start things off, I will briefly sum what I understand to be three importantly distinct ways of knowing.

1)  Faith: it is that which is not questioned.  The emphasis is on knowing without knowing why.  Faith can be acquired directly -- allegedly through divine revelation, but also via a sudden inspiration or epiphany of unknown origins.  Faith can also be acquired via proclamation from another person.

2)  Scholaticism, or Documentarianism: is how I refer to the use primarily of testimony and the account of eyewitnesses to gain knowledge.  It shares some aspects with Faith in that we cannot really know the truth about the events described in a particular document, but if we have no other works documenting those events, we had best believe the account we do have.

3)  For lack of a better term: Scepticism or Science: is the belief that fundamentally, the world can be made sense of by human beings.  It rejects the notion that there are mysteries beyond our grasp -- either because they are solely known to a Divinity, or because knowledge was lost through the ages (and is available solely via the rare accounts of those who were there).  It shares some aspects with Scholasticism as I have described it, but only by necessity: no one person has the time to directly verify all theories for himself, so we must reluctantly rely on the reports of others.  Science can be further divided into explanatory-value science and predictive-value science.

I am eager to focus this debate.  I know we have proponents of at least the latter two philosophies on this forum, and I propose that we begin by giving brief arguments for our preferred philosophy, not to be confused with against somebody else's.

Let the debate begin.

-Erasmus

24
Quote from: "John Noble Wilford, in the NY Times,"
Scientists have discovered fossils of a 375-million-year-old fish, a large scaly creature not seen before, that they say is a long-sought missing link in the evolution of some fishes from water to a life walking on four limbs on land.


snip

Quote
The skeletons have the fins, scales and other attributes of a giant fish, four to nine feet long. But on closer examination, the scientists found telling anatomical traits of a transitional creature, a fish that is still a fish but has changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans.


snip

Quote
Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin's theory.


snip

The rest of the article can be found here.

-Erasmus

25
Flat Earth Q&A / FE magnetic field
« on: March 14, 2006, 06:16:19 PM »
I propose a new model for the source of the flat Earth's magnetic field.  Instead of the Earth being a single magnet with the north pole in the center and the south pole as a non-single-point curve around the rim, can we have have the Earth  contain or be made of up many bar magnets, each with its north pole at the center?  It would look something like this:



I realize of course that there are certain problems with this model, but I think I can address them:

Q: Wouldn't be strong repulsive forces pushing the magnets apart, essentially tearing the Earth apart?

A: This force would definitely exist, but the picture is just to get an idea of the arrangements -- not the size or density -- of the magnets.  I don't mean to suggest that the entire Earth is comprised entirely of enormous magnets; merely that there is magnetic material mixed in with the nonmagnetic material, and that this magnetic material is arranged just like the magnetic material in bar magnets.

Q: What's with the hole in the middle?

A: Partly it was a way of decreasing the repulsive forces at the center of the world.  Partly it was, well, I figured it would be easier to accept the bar-magnet idea if the magnets were actually bar shaped.  Also, the figure isn't too scale; in reality the hole would be much smaller.  But don't forget, if you use a compass right on the north pole, it just spins around a lot, which is exactly what you'd expect from this model.  Lastly, this gives the model more freedom to place the magnetic north pole (see below).

Q: But the magnetic north pole isn't at the same place as the geographic north pole...

A: True, but I don't insist that all the bar magnets be equally strong.  Maybe bar magnet #7 is a bit stronger than the others, which would make compasses tend to point a bit more towards that one.  That's another reason to have the hole -- this way the magnetic north pole doesn't need to be right at the center.

As a final note, you should take this figure as a schematic; it's not meant to be to scale.  There would probably be many more than ten bar magnets, and each would be much narrower.  The hole is probably way too big, and there's no need for spaces in between the bar magnets.

So... comments?  Questions?

-Erasmus

26
The Lounge / God's alignment
« on: March 06, 2006, 12:43:58 PM »
Okay let's see how many gamers we have on this site.  What's God's alignment?  We're talking here about the God of either the Judeo-Christian Bible, OT or NT, and maybe the Qu'ran too, if you like.  You can also debate my definitions of the alignments.

There are two "axes" to an alignment, sometimes referred to "ethical" and "moral".  In the former, you can be Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic; and in the latter, you can be Good, Neutral, or Evil.

On the ethical axis:

Lawful means you think it's important that *you* follow some guidelines, usually those of your society.

Chaotic means you think your behavior ought not be restricted by rules.

27
The Lounge / Reclassification
« on: March 03, 2006, 04:10:44 PM »
Recently, U.S. intelligence agencies have been reclassifying old declassified documents, says the NY Times.

According to U.S. law, all secret documents are to be declassified after 25 years.  Recently, many documents that had previously been made public are now being taken away.  The National Archives and many researchers are of course in an uproar over this.  For some headlines, see

NY Times 1
NY Times 2
NY Times 3

The Times reported that most the reclassified documents were not of a particular sensitive nature, and that they mostly described "ancient history" in the political arena -- events and ideas that had occurred in the 50s, for example.

Why would the government recall all these documents?  Well, suppose you were a toy company that sold dolls, and it turned out that one of the million dolls you sold last year had, say, evidence of fraud at the highest levels of the corporate hierarchy stuffed inside.  Or a bomb, or something.  You would never issue a message saying, "Would the person who bought the doll with the incriminating evidence please return their doll with all its contents?  Thankyou."  No.  They would make some fuss about how the fiber they used caused a minor allergic reaction -- a rash, nothing more -- in 0.1% of children who played with the dolls, and so all the dolls need to be recalled.  They would seem a little silly, but nobody would bother looking inside to see what's really going on.

"Overkill" is a standard tactic in political games.  Make lots of noise, and nobody will notice what you're whispering.

I suggest that maybe, the large-scale recall is intended to mask the recovery of a few accidentally-declassified items of great sensitivity.

Would anyone else care to speculate?

-Erasmus

28
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Free will
« on: February 28, 2006, 05:37:21 PM »
It's a topic everybody has an opinion about.  Personally, I'm drifting towards "illusion".  What do you think?

First I think we should have some consensus about what is meant by free will.  I'm not talking about the idea that nobody has the power to make me be a republican, or to wear a black armband all the time, or only take certain jobs.  I'm talking about the notion that in psychologically/spiritually healthy people, essentially, the conscious intent to act is the first cause of any action, for at least some set of actions.  This set of actions certainly includes things like large muscle movements, speech, and some aspects of imagination.  E.g. I can "decide" to get up and dance, or utter a sentence, or imagine the house I grew up in.  "Free will" in this sense is that those sorts of actions are caused only by my decision/intention to do them, and the decision/intention is caused by nothing at all.

Most importantly, there are no processes in my brain that determine what I will think, decide, want, and intend, and that my "free will" has no control over.  This implies if somebody were to poke my brain in order to make, say, my leg jump, I would be aware of it, but I would also be aware that I didn't decide or intend to do that.

So if you say that you believe in free will, with no qualification or explanation, I'll assume you mean that we have the powers listed in the above paragraphs.

So now to elaborate upon a point that Cinlef asked about in another thread.  We're looking at these brain processes that are associated with consciously deciding to do something.

A neuroscientist (Benjamin Libet) did an experiment in which people were asked to perform some action whenever they felt like it.  The action might be pushing a button or lifting a finger or something "clearly voluntary".  At the same time, they were to watch a clock, and note the exact clock position at which they were first aware of the conscious intent to act.

The clock was designed especially for the experiment.  It consisted of a dot that rotated around in a circle fairly quickly, so that it travelled between the markers on the clock in just a few milliseconds (I don't recall how many markers there were).

Now, the subject was hooked up to an electroencephalograph to measure brain activity.

The results were that there was certain brain activity that happened *before* the subject reported conscious awareness of the intention to act.  That is, something *unconscious* was happening in the brain, *before* any conscious activity happened.  The unconscious activity happened in a statistically significant number of trials.

The conclusion that Libet made is that there are no uncaused conscious acts -- every time you think you just decided to do something, actually, some unconscious part of your brain had already made the decision, and didn't you became aware of it until later.  That is, you don't have free will in the sense I described above.

Thoughts?

-Erasmus

29
Technology, Science & Alt Science / How do we know how old the Earth is?
« on: February 20, 2006, 11:51:51 AM »
So I've been reading through this "true.origins" website (www.trueorigin.org), and this article about the age of the Earth caught my attention.  It basically seems to be claiming that all modern science that aims to estimate the age of the Earth / moon / sun / solar system / galaxy / universe exists only to justify how long evolution takes.  It seems.  Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

See, I was always under the impression that we're constantly digging stuff up out of the ground and putting it in a machine that says, "5000 years + or - 25 years", or "250 million years + or - 11,000 years".  I'm not a radiochemist, but I'm pretty sure this works by figuring out how much there is of stable isotope X and unstable isotope Y in the sample and comparing it to, say, atmospheric ratios of X and Y nowadays.  Then we've got this notion of how long it takes Y to decay to half its present amount, and so we do some really simple math and calculate the age.  However, it seems to me that lots of assumptions have to be made here (like the fact that modern ratios are the same as they were a hajillion years ago) and that radioactive decay was the only source of change in the samples, etc.  If somebody with more knowledge of this subject than I have could clear up these issues for me, I'd be grateful.

Next, I have this notion that we can tell how far away things are in space, and how fast they're moving, and that somehow this gives us an idea as to the age of the universe, if we assume that the Big Bang is the correct model for how it all started.

Anyway, the point of this thread will be to discuss primarily the age of the Earth, especially the "how do we know?" aspect.  As a side-effect, I think discussions of the age of the rest of the universe, as well as the size and relative distances of the rest of the universe, are also valid topics for this thread.  This is a thread geared towards rational discussion of evidence and arguments.  It will not decay into a battle of dogma.  Thus faith and scripture are not "ways of knowing" for the purposes of this thread; if you have other evidence that the Earth's age is so-and-so, and it just happens to agree with scripture, that's fine.

So, valid topics are:

1.  How old is the Earth?  How old are certain parts of the Earth, like humanity, dinosaurs, life, rocks, etc?  How do we know?

2.  How old is the Universe?  How old are certain parts of the Universe, like stars, galaxies, quasars, etc?  How do we know?

Invalid topics are:

1.  Contents of anybody's Bible, Gita, or other sacred text.

2.  Infallibility of the word of anybody.

The currentlyaccepted-by-science age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years, and this comes from radiometric dating using lead.  I'm willing to believe this for lack of better understanding or a more compelling argument.

-Erasmus

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Epistemics, or, What do we all agree on?
« on: January 15, 2006, 07:01:14 PM »
So, one of my major difficulties with carrying out discussions in this forum is, I don't know what assumptions I can make and what I can't.  By this I mean, is Newtonian mechanics okay?  What about quantum mechanics and general relativity?  Is there a cutoff date for scientific thought, after which we suspect that accepted theory could possibly be the result of a conspiracy in the scientific community?  For that matter, what laws of logic and argument should we use?  What sorts of evidence are allowed?

I think we should decide what it is we all agree on from an epistemological standpoint.  I will begin by making some purely mathematical suggestions.

I suggest we all accept:

1)  Propositional and first-order logic; in particular, the Law of Eliminated Middle.  That is, if p is a logical proposition, then exactly one of "p" and "not p" must be true.  Also, proof by contradiction.

2)  Axiomatic set theory according to the Zermelo-Fraenkl axioms; cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_set_theory#Axioms_for_set_theory.
In particular, I would like to keep in the axiom of choice.

3)  Euclidean geometry (including the parallel postulate).  Throwing away the parallel postulate may be allowed as well.

4)  Math directly derived as theorems from the above, especially real analysis and calculus.

For the sciences, I hesitantly offer that we all agree on the first and second laws of thermodynamics and Newton's three laws.  I admit that we probably have to throw away parsimony, esp. if we want to take seriously suggestions of conspiracy theories.

Thoughts?  If you disagree, please keep the disagreement to a specific feature (absent or present) in my list.  If you want to disagree with something in 1-4 especially, we should get that out quickly.

-Erasmus

Pages: [1] 2