Your thoughts on climate change

Come on ytzk, you're not fooling anyone with that rubbish. Something this cute I'd imagine is only responsible for spreading joy throughout the land.

I guess I wasn't disputing that viruses are bad, just that as Smuel pointed they're unlikely to be fatal against multiple species; and that really nasty lethal viruses don't tend to be as evolutionary successful as those with high infectivity but low lethality.

 

This is certainly true and I do not dispute it. It would take a subtle and polymorphous virus to really spread far and wide before its hosts died. Something like HIV for example.

If something as brutal as the Spanish Flu bloomed, however, it would still spread globally within days due to all the flying/transporting going on.

I think vaccines are awesome and that immunologists are the smartest scientists on the planet, but a little bit of study - or a lot - makes it very clear that viruses are fearsome little bastards and not to be underestimated.

If we were run by an AI emperor, I would bet that technology could solve these and other challenges our civilisation faces. Since we're being run by chimpanzees, I'm betting on collapse.

TL;DR: Canned food and shotguns, people.

P.S. Fun Fact: fruit bats hang upside down and urinate on themselves to keep cool and (presumably) sexy. The photo does not convey the pungent stench. Another of their distinctive habits is burying cars in second hand fruit if they park under the wrong tree.

 

"This long", as in millions of years? You are right, I don't think that it has survived so long. :wink: But that is neither here or there... unless you want to hear my view on how I think the world will end. (And please don't tempt me.)


My apologies for my "Seriously?" comment as you have taken it for an argument when I didn't mean it as such... If you were to consider every possible scenario, anything is possible... but not necessarily probable. But then, when I consider the improbable things that have happened in my own life, "improbable" doesn't mean much. So for me to dismiss any possibility just because it isn't probable seems counter-intuitive... haven't you ever encountered any improbables as reality? If the improbable happens, how much value does probabilities really have then? And again my apologies as I don't believe that I have communicated myself very well in this.

 

How do you think the world will end?

 

You had to go there didn't you ytzk? I hope you can deal with the guilt of producing another 10+ page thread epic.

 

Come now, you can't blame other people for what you want to do.

I know this comment is directed at Smuel, so forgive my intrusion;

Whether or not something improbable happens, it's still something improbable. And while I can see what you're saying about statistical likelihood not necessarily having the same real world applications as it might on paper, it still matters. For example, you might find yourself a large lottery winner (Powerball - 1 in 175 million) several times over (let's say 3 times), and the chance of that happening as many times to one person is very improbable (1 in 5,359,375,000,000,000,000,000,000). Still, that doesn't change how likely it is to happen again to another person. It still matters quite a bit, I'd say.

 

Re:

Fire

But I can blame them for creating an emotional response, can't I? And if the player doesn't want to deal with the consequences of that emotional response, giving the player fair warning can prevent the whole resulting mess.

Yeah, but if, let's say, you can time-view the future, that specific probability becomes meaningless because it is based on the assumption of random guesses. And since time-viewing is theoretically possible, just not proven, a time-viewing individual won't be subject to the lottery's probability even though we (as rational individuals that can't prove such individuals exist) would probably apply that value of probability to the question of whether or not that person would win. In fact, the chances of that person winning would be more subject to the accuracy of their information than the probabilities assumed.

One point I could make is that we know too little to believe that probabilities have the significance that we desire to grant to them. We desire a world that makes sense, but, as Shakespeare said in his play 'Hamlet', "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Therefore shouldn't we be willing to be adrift in the seas of the unknown?

Anyways, my main point is to look at things from more than one point-of-view. Otherwise your view is limited.

 

Re: Re:

You're still trying to put blame on another person for your actions. Everyone has personal responsibility, so while it's up to the "player" to spark whatever response you've got backed up, it's up to you how you respond.

Well, by using an unprovable variable, you're not exactly shattering what effect probabilities have on the universe, and people, in general. All you've done is illustrate special circumstances - an exception that proves the rule. Sure, the time-viewing individual doesn't need to rely on luck for their winning numbers, but anyone else still does.

I agree with you here;

That quote from Hamlet is appropriate in nearly any context, considering the sheer amount of things not known. However, improbable things happening doesn't shatter probability. Given an infinite amount of time, any given event becomes infinitely probable. And, like I've done before, I can multiply the probabilities for just about any event - shark attacks (1 in 11 million), or lightning strikes on human targets (1 in 500,000), for example, and it does nothing to change how special whatever circumstances are that allowed for it to happen.

It could actually be that attaching meaning to how many shark attacks the triple-lottery-winning-lighting-strike-magnet survived is appropriate. Or, that since each possible event has a noted probability, it's theoretically possible for all of those things to happen to one person (which is incredibly bitter-sweet). They lucked out, though - they'll need the money for hospital bills. I'll bring you back to this;

This is also a solid point against what you've been saying. Especially since you invoked a case of "hypothetical person can control the lottery with precognitive powers." Still, no matter how you see that statement, a person's perceptions can have little to do with reality, in spite of perception being everything.

 

I'm sure that imagining or claiming infallible foresight does not theoretically possible make. Besides, even for Yoda, always in motion the future is. I'm not sure how that affects your metastatistics.

Nevermind that, logic be damned, I miss hearing about your whimsical backwater cosmology. It reminds me of my childhood.

Reading between the lines, Xyle, I believe you are saying Armageddon is 100% probable because prophecy.

Is it so? Are there such things?

And what do you mean by fire, exactly?

 

Re:

I'm rooting for a super volcano. Shit would be awesome, and all the geologist could be like "Right back at you!".

 

That could make for an interesting comic. In the first issue, we learn the origins of Super Volcano, and in the next issue everyone is still dead.

 

I have reason to believe that I have an intolerance to sucralose and if present trends continue, Transparent Painting's shit volcano is the way I'm likely to die.

I wouldn't be surprised if this has already been shared at The House and has probably been viewed by at least one of you. Xyle's skepticism at life's history reminded me of this.

 

Re:

You sugar alcohol bigot.

On a more serious note, the FDA says aspartame doesn't need to be listed as an ingredient in consumables containing it. I know a woman who can't use most chewing gums because she'll go into anaphylactic shock over aspartame.

Also, pizza is a vegetable.

 

Re: Re:

I accept the full responsibility of my own actions and the consequences of such (whether they be good or whether they be evil -- though if they be evil, I pray for God's grace and mercy so that I, and the world, don't suffer the full consequences of such), but when did emotional responses become unethical or immoral? I am not a person of passion who seeks emotional responses, nor I am of pure reason who is displeased with emotional responses; however, the other player in this game of words may rather not deal with such a response; therefore, I did what I considered ethical and offered a means of bypassing such potential unpleasantness... which, I suppose, is why I am writing more in response to you instead of the other player in this game.


Whether it be the improbable time-viewing the future or the more probable winning the lottery by rigging the outcome as events that interfere with pure probability, we tend to be unaware of the will of others, and Will leads to actions. Which brings me to the point that perception, preconceptions and assumptions can cloud judgment, for without judgment we cannot decide on our course of action. Furthermore postulates you use to create your logic are always based on belief. Whether that belief is the belief that what you experience is real or the belief that this world is nothing and the next one is the one that is real, they are still beliefs. Your logic may be sound, but it is your beliefs behind your logic that I would have you challenge. Principally, the belief that our senses can tell us what is and that God cannot.

Calvinism would say otherwise. Though, saying such, that doesn't mean that I am Calvinist, but Scripture does use words like "predestined".

God is; therefore, the ending that He has in store for the world is a certainty. Deny the certainty of God's existence and the resulting end of the world becomes equally uncertain. Live as if the Creator exists, and you have to accept that, as Creator, He has the authority to destroy His own creation. With that authority comes the timing and method of that destruction. Scripture says that the world will end by fire; science says the sun will eventually turn into a Red Giant, the main disagreement between religion and science in this issue is Time. But that disagreement stems from each's understanding of the past with the Creation vs Evolution Debate. Therefore the fundamental argument is the question of God's existence and authority. Because if there is no God, then everything is meaningless... including life.

Put simply, both prophecy and the end of the world are as real as the God who gives them. Furthermore, both are effects of the cause with the cause being God's decisions.

 

Wha...?

Fantastic stuff!

Hm.

On reflection I don't know how to respond but I want to hear more.

At the risk of having it vaulted, I propose a new thread for bible studies.

Not that creationism and the end times isn't relevant to the climate change debate, just that Dark Fool has warned us before about derailing threads with religion.

Consider me a potential convert who is curious to learn more.

 

Re: Re:

I'm pretty sure I didn't say emotions were immoral or unethical. That aside, by telling the "player" precisely what not to do, you're baiting him to do it. And then should he follow through, you're holding him responsible for having provoked you.

Statistics are there to represent the probability of something happening within known variables. They assume all people are equal - and even in a case where someone can call lottery numbers from the future, this doesn't alter how the lottery works for other people;

The Powerball, as I've mentioned, gives a player odds of about 1 in 175 million to win. There are over 316 million people in this country, making it likely that more than one person will get the winning numbers. Even if one person rigged the lottery or could see the winning numbers in advance without having an inside man, the chances of someone winning are still 1 in 175 million. I know this because people have rigged the lottery, and it doesn't change the chances of a jackpot.

I agree with your first sentence, though it's a bit of a truism toward the end. In your second, I have to disagree - in general, why would I allow my fallible beliefs to have anything to do with logic?

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

A belief is normally something held with no physical proof, and the process leading to that belief can be logical - mutual trust in a relationship, for example. However, not everything is a happy relationship based on mutual trust. I'd be more likely to agree with your statement if the phrase "but not all" was tacked on the end of it.

Did you miss this sentence fragment? Because it's in tune with your encouragement of skepticism. I've been trying not to say things I wouldn't mind another person saying to me in this conversation, though you wouldn't have been aware of that.

Do you recall how I went through a severe psychotic break? That part of my life is the direct inspiration for the statement you seem to have missed. The first thing I do when confronted with information is find out if it's not true. I cross reference peculiar things I see with people around me, and find a consensus.

And while for some people seeing is believing, for others believing is seeing - which is basically the placebo effect.

To be frank, you seem to suggest I'm not as open a thinker as you are. If I'm taking this correctly, you're saying that I'm not looking at the world with enough perspective simply because I've found ways to disagree with you. However, your continued assertions that I don't think broadly enough seem hypocritical. Especially if I consider how I've planned out my responses in this debate, while you're trying to convince me of things I've shown agreement with in posts directly preceding yours.

 

Re: Re:

That makes sense. I guess I didn't see it from that point of view as I wasn't trying to bait anyone and I suppose that I really didn't expect that type of response.

Although, I think that you could hold someone response for being repeatedly being baited ... as the saying goes "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." ... and haven't we all interacted before?

(Truth is two-edged sword, and I am cut... But then pruning a tree can help it grow.)

You did use the word "blame" with regards to my creating emotional responses.

Also, it's not the emotions that are treated as unwanted, but emotional responses. For example: The child whining and crying about some stupid thing (from adults' p.o.v.) can be annoying and aggravating, but the same child quietly suffering isn't. Both need equal amounts of love and both are unlikely to receive what they need because of either the parent's annoyance or ignorance... but that is neither here nor there.

...known variables... I agree you with completely, but am I talking about the known or the unknown?

Logic is tool. A tool is useless unless it is used upon something. Any logic begins with postulates, things that are held to be true, and the accuracy of those postulates determine the limits of the accuracy of the logic. The more logic is used on beliefs, the greater accuracy of those beliefs that remain, but they are still beliefs.

Considering relationships and trust: Everyone lies, even you, even me (even if it is just through omission or misrepresent). And if the lie is meaningless enough, then it can easily be forgiven, but it is still a lie. So should the slightest lie destroy years of trust? Of course not, because then none of your relationships would have any lasting duration, or would you expect your parents and everyone else to reveal their entire life history to you?

And classical physics has been proven to be wrong by both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. And the fact that both can't be reconciled together indicates that both are incomplete at best. Why was classical physics proven to be wrong by the more advanced sciences? Because it was based on philosophical ideals about the nature of the universe. Time, for example, was assumed to be have a constant flow everywhere in the universe. (Relativity disproved that.) The philosophical idea that physical laws are constant through out the universe hasn't be proven, therefore isn't science. And yet, such philosophy is treated as science because it hasn't been disproven... yet. Science is also entwined with such philosophy; therefore, how can you separate one from the other without becoming a master of science? Because science is built upon and entwined with philosophy, and philosophy is a belief, that means that science is fallible and incomplete. It is because science is fallible that it is capable of growth... which is why I...

Skepticism? When my intention is faith? I truly believe that we have failed to understand each other's points of view.

We walk the paths that lies before us because of the path that lies behind us. Because of your past experience, it would not be wise for you to open yourself too much, but I can be as the fool because of my reliance on what God has given me. ("For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." 2 Timothy 1:7)

The foolishness that I am advocating is based on the verse "But the fruit of the Spirit is ... faith ... against such there is no law." Therefore, I would take the position that everything is true ... but not every understanding is true. Which I guess means that everything is a half-truth. Therefore, it is easy to deceive with both facts and truth because everyone's understanding is limited by what they have already learned. (Deliberate deception is harder because then you have to at least partly understand how your audience will respond.)
Statistics, therefore, can deceive even as they reveal what is factually correct. The easiest example would be 25 million have a certain disease vs the corresponding percentage that 25 million actually represents. The 25 million is a large number, but the percentage is small one (when compared to the population of a large nation or the world); therefore which one would be used is dependent on if one wished to play up or down play the numbers.

Did your perspective create a view that I believe in a form of faith that creates skepticism by turning everything into a believable half-truth?

Truth is, I believe that no one except the Most High God has enough perspective, especially including myself. Therefore, we should all seek to look deeper than what we have already looked... but then do we have the time to do so? Since we do not, then we should use that searching for the depth for things that really matter, but we should still seek to look deeper and ever deeper.


And I am sorry ...

 

Re: Re:

I already regret this conversation, but...

That's probably why Smuel stopped talking to you. I seem to be a glutton for punishment, however.

I actually think you read too much into what I meant by "blame". It was in reference to the person who you would bait, rather than the responses themselves;

I wasn't directly or indirectly saying the responses were immoral. Blame happens to be, in such a scenario.

Depends on if you told me what the variables are. And you happened to tell me of a psychic - at which point it became a known, which is when I showed how it doesn't matter by using basic math.

Logic is just a word people came up with to describe something that already existed. Life is pretty logical - if you look closely at the veins on a leaf, or a plant's roots, you can see they split into fractals. That happens to be the best way for the veins to grow so the plant gets the most nutrients in its environment. It's completely logical for it to grow that way - and it has nothing to do with whether or not the plant believes anything. So, if logic is a tool based on postulates, what postulates did plants develop before they came to the logical conclusion of growing in fractals?

I...What? I literally said;

Yes, I said I believe in mutual trust, as an example of things belief is a common part of after experience shows it's a reasonable conclusion.
*The definition of belief is that you don't need proof to have it - which is why I said "normally."

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." This phrase can be understood as "There's a scientific explanation for something, even if it's shown to prove previous science wrong."
Why am I the person you're trying to convince of how broad assertions about physics might be wrong? Did you consider before writing this, that I might not regard theories that have nothing to do with the part of the universe we can see? That's a problem I have with string theory (because we can only directly experience 4 dimensions), and it's a problem I have with people claiming certainty on something they will never be able to observe.

Also, theories are science, considering they're experimentally proven based on things that are scientific - the reason they aren't laws is because you're right, we don't have proof they work everywhere. They just tend to work the way we describe every time we run an experiment.
Your statement leaves room for a few things - there's either other universes with different physics outside of our observable bubble, or nothing exists out there, or...what? Does a different set of physics outside of the observable universe somehow have an effect on what exists in this one?

You directly encouraged me to be skeptical of my belief structure;

I've known you wanted me to have faith the whole time, and failing that, to be convinced that I have faith in science. I'm just wondering why it's so important to you that I say "yes."

Hold on a bit here - I have no problem with people who have faith, and good for you in that you've shaken your past. I have my own reasons not to have faith in a higher power, just as you have your reasons for the opposite - so why is your way foolish? And why does that even matter?

Also;

You keep saying things in your posts that can be used against you in this conversation. I'm not claiming I have the answers with my ideas, but how do you actually know you're right?

Yeah, that's a common tactic I see in the news and from politicians, and I agree it's pretty manipulative.

No, because my perspective doesn't involve your thoughts...more like what I think of your thoughts.

Well of course an omniscient super-being is going to have enough, but that doesn't explain why you're trying to use unprovable statements to convince me of the benefits of your perspective.

Is this a joke based on how you quoted me out of context?

 

Re: Re:

No.

And I plainly see that we do not understand each other so I won't bother you anymore.

You start it. That will prove that you aren't being sarcastic.