most of the physics of the world (and universe) has no memory or conscience, cares nothing of you, so i’d argue Gods are necessary

further i’d argue consciousness only just works, that universal illusions are necessarily generated to patch the enterprise

That’s a bleak summary and I’d say it’s also very inaccurate.

“Gods” are figments of the cognitive distortion that occurs when people view the world anthropomorphically through an undisciplined imagination, fed by fear, ignorance and wishful thinking. And of course often subject to manipulation by smarter, more cynical “holy men” who know how to use such cognitive tricks for their own advantage.

Far from being necessary, religion is a serious handicap to human progress. But it really is disarmed by science and reason and we can look forward to a future in which the most significant strain of humanity is free of it entirely.

Bubblecar said:

That’s a bleak summary and I’d say it’s also very inaccurate.

“Gods” are figments of the cognitive distortion that occurs when people view the world anthropomorphically through an undisciplined imagination, fed by fear, ignorance and wishful thinking. And of course often subject to manipulation by smarter, more cynical “holy men” who know how to use such cognitive tricks for their own advantage.

Far from being necessary, religion is a serious handicap to human progress. But it really is disarmed by science and reason and we can look forward to a future in which the most significant strain of humanity is free of it entirely.

consider Gods that have nothing to do with religion, that aren’t real or supernatural but are necessary, keep the possibility available in your head

think of it (God) as a conceptual device that transforms the pervasive indifference of the universe into something less potentially hostile

consider the possibility that a sane rational person might resolve to a friendly view of the universe that has a God

now consider an example of physicalism that is attracted to the indifference of the universe, finds variously utility in a physics that has no conscience or memory, then goes about adopting a view (and ways) that corresponds with the vast indifference, promises to liberate that way

i’m saying there’s a dark side, an unfriendly dimension to physicalism

transition said:

most of the physics of the world (and universe) has no memory or conscience, cares nothing of you, so i’d argue Gods are necessary

further i’d argue consciousness only just works, that universal illusions are necessarily generated to patch the enterprise

You can have your illusions. Doesn’t mean anyone else does what you wish.

>think of it (God) as a conceptual device that transforms the pervasive indifference of the universe into something less potentially hostile

You don’t seem to see the simple mistake you’re making here.

You admit that “god” is a product of the human imagination, projected into what you call an “indifferent” universe, for the sake of pretending the universe does actually “care about us”.

But if you accept that it’s entirely unreasonable to expect the universe outside of human minds and societies to “care about” humans, what point can there be in pretending otherwise?

Far better to accept that human concerns are rightfully human concerns – ethics, politics, all the rest of it are products of our own minds and cultures, whether or not we pretend there are gods shaping these things.

So let’s not pretend there are any gods – let’s take full responsibility for own ethics and our own behaviour, and tell the imaginary magical critters to sod off back to more primitive times.

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

That’s a bleak summary and I’d say it’s also very inaccurate.

“Gods” are figments of the cognitive distortion that occurs when people view the world anthropomorphically through an undisciplined imagination, fed by fear, ignorance and wishful thinking. And of course often subject to manipulation by smarter, more cynical “holy men” who know how to use such cognitive tricks for their own advantage.

Far from being necessary, religion is a serious handicap to human progress. But it really is disarmed by science and reason and we can look forward to a future in which the most significant strain of humanity is free of it entirely.

consider Gods that have nothing to do with religion, that aren’t real or supernatural but are necessary, keep the possibility available in your head

think of it (God) as a conceptual device that transforms the pervasive indifference of the universe into something less potentially hostile

consider the possibility that a sane rational person might resolve to a friendly view of the universe that has a God

now consider an example of physicalism that is attracted to the indifference of the universe, finds variously utility in a physics that has no conscience or memory, then goes about adopting a view (and ways) that corresponds with the vast indifference, promises to liberate that way

i’m saying there’s a dark side, an unfriendly dimension to physicalism

Why if there is a dark side then there has to be a light side.

out of my brain on the train

By chance, just this morning it occurred to me that if there is a god or gods, then he/she/they simply don’t care about us.

You can believe in ‘god/s’ or not, and it won’t make the slightest bit of difference in the end.

When you’ve seen a decent storm at sea, you quickly realise that the sea is indifferent to you. It will behave as it does in the circumstances, and whether you live or die out there makes not a jot of difference to it.

Same for god/s. You can pray all you like, but your god/s aren’t going to ‘do’ anything to alter the situation one tiny bit.

transition said:

consider Gods that have nothing to do with religion, that aren’t real or supernatural but are necessary, keep the possibility available in your head

think of it (God) as a conceptual device that transforms the pervasive indifference of the universe into something less potentially hostile

consider the possibility that a sane rational person might resolve to a friendly view of the universe that has a God

I don’t think such a thing (if it is a “thing”) should be called a God, because that word comes with a lot of baggage, and that baggage is inescapable.

It seems to me (for instance) that inherent in the word God, is an entity that is in some sense real, that requires to be worshipped.

But anyway, whatever you want to call it, I don’t see the need for it.

transition said:

now consider an example of physicalism that is attracted to the indifference of the universe, finds variously utility in a physics that has no conscience or memory, then goes about adopting a view (and ways) that corresponds with the vast indifference, promises to liberate that way

i’m saying there’s a dark side, an unfriendly dimension to physicalism

So what is this dark side, of which you speak?

I suspect you are engaging in a little either-orism here, but it’s really not clear to me just what you are saying.

I doubt it’s that uncommon to instrumentally attribute benevolence to nature in response to there probably being none really, seems adaptive

anyway the thread’s a thought exercise, I wasn’t interested in being correct so much, easily correct, or obviously correct, or simply correct

fact is a large part of the progress of the world involves a worldliness from the indifference of nature, and physics

but there are different ways, not everyone wants their moral compass calibrated by broader nature, secretly, and dressed up as something else

transition said:

I doubt it’s that uncommon to instrumentally attribute benevolence to nature in response to there probably being none really, seems adaptive

anyway the thread’s a thought exercise, I wasn’t interested in being correct so much, easily correct, or obviously correct, or simply correct

fact is a large part of the progress of the world involves a worldliness from the indifference of nature, and physics

but there are different ways, not everyone wants their moral compass calibrated by broader nature, secretly, and dressed up as something else

Which is why we don’t talk about our secret faith nor who we actually vote for. ;)

if we(1,1,1) believe something, we (1,1,1) necessarily believe it is true

transition said:

but there are different ways, not everyone wants their moral compass calibrated by broader nature, secretly, and dressed up as something else

I don’t know what that means.

to get to the heart of what i’m thinking about, consider what you are attracted to of the physics of the world that has no conscious or memory, the utility from that

put simply, that above gets to it, points to it

I’ve been working on a Bible translation that contains no Gods.

Yhwh becomes “nature”
El becomes “law”
Elohim becomes “laws” (also singular as in book of laws)
El Shaddai becomes “chief justice”
El Elyon becomes “supreme court”
Adonai becomes “masters”
Christ becomes “king”
Messiah becomes “benefactor”

It is well known (in Wikipedia for instance”) that Yhwh and El began with different meanings, and only became synonymous late in Bible development. By the time of the Lords Prayer in the New Testament everything has become mixed up into an unholy jumble, and contradicts a passage in James.

So, for instance, Gen 1:1 starts:

In the beginning, nature created the cosmos and the Earth

And the passage from Psalms that is normally translated as “The fool says in his heart there is no God” becomes:

The dissolute in his thoughts says there is no Laws

So, are Gods necessary?

transition said:

most of the physics of the world (and universe) has no memory or conscience, cares nothing of you, so i’d argue Gods are necessary

further i’d argue consciousness only just works, that universal illusions are necessarily generated to patch the enterprise

I can see three places for Gods, two of which are nicely expressed by transition.

transition’s first line puts a place for Gods, it can be thought of needing a scapegoat to escape guilt. “A God made me do it” assuages guilt which frees up action. It also allows for influences from Jungian archaetypes, and takes the place of coincidence.

transition’s second line explains the universal illusions of DC and Marvel.

The third place I see for Gods is social glue. Giving a common topic to talk about.

Every religion becomes more insular and extreme with time. Much like evaporative cooling.

SCIENCE said:

if we(1,1,1) believe something, we (1,1,1) necessarily believe it is true

What is the significance of the (1,1,1)?

transition said:

to get to the heart of what i’m thinking about, consider what you are attracted to of the physics of the world that has no conscious or memory, the utility from that

put simply, that above gets to it, points to it

I still don’t know what you are getting at or pointing to.

transition said:

to get to the heart of what i’m thinking about, consider what you are attracted to of the physics of the world that has no conscious or memory, the utility from that

put simply, that above gets to it, points to it

conscience or memory, that ought’ve been writ

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

if we(1,1,1) believe something, we (1,1,1) necessarily believe it is true

What is the significance of the (1,1,1)?

dv recommended it as a standard for clusivity

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been working on a Bible translation that contains no Gods.

So, are Gods necessary?

I can see three places for Gods, two of which are nicely expressed by transition.

transition’s first line puts a place for Gods, it can be thought of needing a scapegoat to escape guilt. “A God made me do it” assuages guilt which frees up action. It also allows for influences from Jungian archaetypes, and takes the place of coincidence.

transition’s second line explains the universal illusions of DC and Marvel.

The third place I see for Gods is social glue. Giving a common topic to talk about.

Every religion becomes more insular and extreme with time. Much like evaporative cooling.

so like many other things that be been reinvented time and again, Gods are useful but neither necessary nor sufficient

SCIENCE said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been working on a Bible translation that contains no Gods.

So, are Gods necessary?

I can see three places for Gods, two of which are nicely expressed by transition.

transition’s first line puts a place for Gods, it can be thought of needing a scapegoat to escape guilt. “A God made me do it” assuages guilt which frees up action. It also allows for influences from Jungian archaetypes, and takes the place of coincidence.

transition’s second line explains the universal illusions of DC and Marvel.

The third place I see for Gods is social glue. Giving a common topic to talk about.

Every religion becomes more insular and extreme with time. Much like evaporative cooling.

so like many other things that be been reinvented time and again, Gods are useful but neither necessary nor sufficient

Perhaps Gods were necessary once, but are no longer.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

if we(1,1,1) believe something, we (1,1,1) necessarily believe it is true

What is the significance of the (1,1,1)?

dv recommended it as a standard for clusivity

Never knew we was so complicated.

So (1,1,1) indicates that your “we” includes you, me and anyone else who reads that word?

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What is the significance of the (1,1,1)?

dv recommended it as a standard for clusivity

Never knew we was so complicated.

So (1,1,1) indicates that your “we” includes you, me and anyone else who reads that word?

Yeah but two thirds of it is a guess?

transition said:

transition said:

to get to the heart of what i’m thinking about, consider what you are attracted to of the physics of the world that has no conscious or memory, the utility from that

put simply, that above gets to it, points to it

conscience or memory, that ought’ve been writ

Anyway, my position on this is:

Most of the external universe has no conscience, and has no conscious memory (everything has a memory in the sense that what happened in the past affect how it behaves now).

But the little bits of the external universe that are important to me (i.e. the people and other living things I interact with) do have a conscience, and a conscious memory.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

if we(1,1,1) believe something, we (1,1,1) necessarily believe it is true

What is the significance of the (1,1,1)?

dv recommended it as a standard for clusivity

Never knew we was so complicated.

So (1,1,1) indicates that your “we” includes you, me and anyone else who reads that word?

Yeah but two thirds of it is a guess?

no, what we claimed is a necessary consequence, as in, a theorem

but The Rev Dodgson makes a good point about the complicated nature of we(0,0,0)(meta), inspiring us to suggest that in more technical descriptions, rather than flagging “(1,2,3,meta)”, we(1,0,0,0) would treat the meta use sufficiently differently that we (1,0,0,0) would use the representation ““we”“ (that is, with quotation marks, as in {the word “we”}) instead

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Never knew we was so complicated.

So (1,1,1) indicates that your “we” includes you, me and anyone else who reads that word?

Yeah but two thirds of it is a guess?

no, what we claimed is a necessary consequence, as in, a theorem

but The Rev Dodgson makes a good point about the complicated nature of we(0,0,0)(meta), inspiring us to suggest that in more technical descriptions, rather than flagging “(1,2,3,meta)”, we(1,0,0,0) would treat the meta use sufficiently differently that we (1,0,0,0) would use the representation ““we”“ (that is, with quotation marks, as in {the word “we”}) instead

I think we (Science and me) are in agreeance on the statement that “I believe x” implies that “I believe x is true”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

Yeah but two thirds of it is a guess?

no, what we claimed is a necessary consequence, as in, a theorem

but The Rev Dodgson makes a good point about the complicated nature of we(0,0,0)(meta), inspiring us to suggest that in more technical descriptions, rather than flagging “(1,2,3,meta)”, we(1,0,0,0) would treat the meta use sufficiently differently that we (1,0,0,0) would use the representation ““we”“ (that is, with quotation marks, as in {the word “we”}) instead

I think we (Science and me) are in agreeance on the statement that “I believe x” implies that “I believe x is true”.

My FiL was a stickler for English and obviously it wasn’t taught when he went to school or he would probably have accepted agreeance. However, every time I used it, I was cautioned that agreement was the correct term but maybe he was defining the actual context?.

The old saying goes that if God didn’t exist humans would make one up anyway.

Peak Warming Man said:

The old saying goes that if God didn’t exist humans would make one up anyway.

or many.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been working on a Bible translation that contains no Gods.

So, are Gods necessary?

I can see three places for Gods, two of which are nicely expressed by transition.

transition’s first line puts a place for Gods, it can be thought of needing a scapegoat to escape guilt. “A God made me do it” assuages guilt which frees up action. It also allows for influences from Jungian archaetypes, and takes the place of coincidence.

transition’s second line explains the universal illusions of DC and Marvel.

The third place I see for Gods is social glue. Giving a common topic to talk about.

Every religion becomes more insular and extreme with time. Much like evaporative cooling.

so like many other things that be been reinvented time and again, Gods are useful but neither necessary nor sufficient

Perhaps Gods were necessary once, but are no longer.

surely you’ve wanted for something that probably doesn’t exist in this world, imagined something into existence, tried, or imagined something otherwise, and why not a benevolent force in the universe

absolutely nothing wrong with that, and why not in response to a universe that cares not, call it an instrumental belief

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

so like many other things that be been reinvented time and again, Gods are useful but neither necessary nor sufficient

Perhaps Gods were necessary once, but are no longer.

surely you’ve wanted for something that probably doesn’t exist in this world, imagined something into existence, tried, or imagined something otherwise, and why not a benevolent force in the universe

absolutely nothing wrong with that, and why not in response to a universe that cares not, call it an instrumental belief

Manifesting

>>but The Rev Dodgson makes a good point

Let’s not get carried away.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

so like many other things that be been reinvented time and again, Gods are useful but neither necessary nor sufficient

Perhaps Gods were necessary once, but are no longer.

surely you’ve wanted for something that probably doesn’t exist in this world, imagined something into existence, tried, or imagined something otherwise, and why not a benevolent force in the universe

absolutely nothing wrong with that, and why not in response to a universe that cares not, call it an instrumental belief

If you want to invent such an imaginary entity, and it makes you happier, then I agree there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I don’t see the point myself though.

And the trouble is there are several widespread religions that are not like that at all.

i.e. they insist that their mythology is the one truth, and if you don’t accept it as an absolute truth your life is pointless, or worse.

transition said:

most of the physics of the world (and universe) has no memory or conscience, cares nothing of you, so i’d argue Gods are necessary

further i’d argue consciousness only just works, that universal illusions are necessarily generated to patch the enterprise

> further i’d argue consciousness only just works

Like this?

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

most of the physics of the world (and universe) has no memory or conscience, cares nothing of you, so i’d argue Gods are necessary

further i’d argue consciousness only just works, that universal illusions are necessarily generated to patch the enterprise

> further i’d argue consciousness only just works

Like this?

I think the hypothesis “a fish has the same mental tools” is almost certainly incorrect.

transition said:

transition said:

to get to the heart of what i’m thinking about, consider what you are attracted to of the physics of the world that has no conscious or memory, the utility from that

put simply, that above gets to it, points to it

conscience or memory, that ought’ve been writ

You seem to be the one guilty of assuming that one can derive some kind of morality from “the physics of the world”, rather than the world of human concerns.

I’m insisting that you can’t, and that you shouldn’t expect to be able to.

There’s absolutely no proof, none what so ever that God doesn’t exist.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

transition said:

to get to the heart of what i’m thinking about, consider what you are attracted to of the physics of the world that has no conscious or memory, the utility from that

put simply, that above gets to it, points to it

conscience or memory, that ought’ve been writ

You seem to be the one guilty of assuming that one can derive some kind of morality from “the physics of the world”, rather than the world of human concerns.

I’m insisting that you can’t, and that you shouldn’t expect to be able to.

Following dv’s ref. to Epictetus, I reminded myself what the Stoics thought on these things. It seems (if TATE is correct, and I understood it) that morality coming from “nature” was a key element of their philosophy, and I suppose “nature” might be called “the physics of the world”.

But I agree with you on this question.

Peak Warming Man said:

There’s absolutely no proof, none what so ever that God doesn’t exist.

There’s no reason to believe that any god is anything other than an invention of the human imagination.

As I’m sure you agree, in regard to all the gods you don’t believe in.

Peak Warming Man said:

There’s absolutely no proof, none what so ever that God doesn’t exist.

And there is absolutely no absolute proof of absolutely anything.

There are however very good reasons to think that some things are true, and there are also very good reasons to think that some other things are invented.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

There’s absolutely no proof, none what so ever that God doesn’t exist.

And there is absolutely no absolute proof of absolutely anything.

There are however very good reasons to think that some things are true, and there are also very good reasons to think that some other things are invented.

Like the wheel.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

There’s absolutely no proof, none what so ever that God doesn’t exist.

And there is absolutely no absolute proof of absolutely anything.

There are however very good reasons to think that some things are true, and there are also very good reasons to think that some other things are invented.

Like the wheel.

I’d say the wheel was more a discovery than an invention.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

There’s absolutely no proof, none what so ever that God doesn’t exist.

And there is absolutely no absolute proof of absolutely anything.

There are however very good reasons to think that some things are true, and there are also very good reasons to think that some other things are invented.

So, James Watt didn’t invent the steam engine and was not impressed by his kettle?

Peak Warming Man said:

There’s absolutely no proof, none what so ever that God doesn’t exist.

I can think of several.

Start with: “If God exists, who created him, and why?”

Stay tuned for another proof that God doesn’t exist.

The Rev Dodgson said:

And there is absolutely no absolute proof of absolutely anything.

There are however very good reasons to think that some things are true, and there are also very good reasons to think that some other things are invented.

seems a bit unfair

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

And there is absolutely no absolute proof of absolutely anything.

There are however very good reasons to think that some things are true, and there are also very good reasons to think that some other things are invented.

Like the wheel.

I’d say the wheel was more a discovery than an invention.

Inventions were most often only a practical fabrication of a demonstration model of an actual truth. ie; a log rolls so slice it into wheels?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

There’s absolutely no proof, none what so ever that God doesn’t exist.

And there is absolutely no absolute proof of absolutely anything.

There are however very good reasons to think that some things are true, and there are also very good reasons to think that some other things are invented.

So, James Watt didn’t invent the steam engine and was not impressed by his kettle?

The idea that James Watt invented the steam engine is a good example of a widely accepted idea that is almost certainly wrong, and thus could be called an invention.

I don’t know how he felt about his kettle.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

And there is absolutely no absolute proof of absolutely anything.

There are however very good reasons to think that some things are true, and there are also very good reasons to think that some other things are invented.

Like the wheel.

I’d say the wheel was more a discovery than an invention.

Ooooh, now you’ve done it.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

And there is absolutely no absolute proof of absolutely anything.

There are however very good reasons to think that some things are true, and there are also very good reasons to think that some other things are invented.

seems a bit unfair

What would Mr Gödel have to say about that one?

Peak Warming Man said:

There’s absolutely no proof, none what so ever that God doesn’t exist.

Let’s use Occam’s Razor.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

And there is absolutely no absolute proof of absolutely anything.

There are however very good reasons to think that some things are true, and there are also very good reasons to think that some other things are invented.

So, James Watt didn’t invent the steam engine and was not impressed by his kettle?

The idea that James Watt invented the steam engine is a good example of a widely accepted idea that is almost certainly wrong, and thus could be called an invention.

I don’t know how he felt about his kettle.

I think the kettle is probably a fanciful invention.
He did however apply himself to improving the steam engine and it may well be that a whistle stop on a kettle could perhaps have been inspiring for a condenser?

Michael V said:

Peak Warming Man said:

There’s absolutely no proof, none what so ever that God doesn’t exist.

Let’s use Occam’s Razor.

I think Occam’s Razor may be the most over-rated slicing device in existence.

Michael V said:

Peak Warming Man said:

There’s absolutely no proof, none what so ever that God doesn’t exist.

Let’s use Occam’s Razor.

How often does he sharpen it?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

So, James Watt didn’t invent the steam engine and was not impressed by his kettle?

The idea that James Watt invented the steam engine is a good example of a widely accepted idea that is almost certainly wrong, and thus could be called an invention.

I don’t know how he felt about his kettle.

I think the kettle is probably a fanciful invention.
He did however apply himself to improving the steam engine and it may well be that a whistle stop on a kettle could perhaps have been inspiring for a condenser?

I mean it’s possible that Watt did invent the steam engine, and then the other guy (whose name escapes me for now) travelled back in time and pretended he had invented it.

But I think we are using “invent” in a different sense here :)

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

There’s absolutely no proof, none what so ever that God doesn’t exist.

And there is absolutely no absolute proof of absolutely anything.

There are however very good reasons to think that some things are true, and there are also very good reasons to think that some other things are invented.

So, James Watt didn’t invent the steam engine and was not impressed by his kettle?

James Watt certainly didn’t invent the steam engine. He improved the existing Newcomen steam engine. I know nothing about his kettle impressions.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The idea that James Watt invented the steam engine is a good example of a widely accepted idea that is almost certainly wrong, and thus could be called an invention.

I don’t know how he felt about his kettle.

I think the kettle is probably a fanciful invention.
He did however apply himself to improving the steam engine and it may well be that a whistle stop on a kettle could perhaps have been inspiring for a condenser?

I mean it’s possible that Watt did invent the steam engine, and then the other guy (whose name escapes me for now) travelled back in time and pretended he had invented it.

But I think we are using “invent” in a different sense here :)

Thomas Newcomen’s 1712 Newcomen steam engine

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

I think the kettle is probably a fanciful invention.
He did however apply himself to improving the steam engine and it may well be that a whistle stop on a kettle could perhaps have been inspiring for a condenser?

I mean it’s possible that Watt did invent the steam engine, and then the other guy (whose name escapes me for now) travelled back in time and pretended he had invented it.

But I think we are using “invent” in a different sense here :)

Thomas Newcomen’s 1712 Newcomen steam engine

Not my hero?
Hero

quote=SCIENCE

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I mean it’s possible that Watt did invent the steam engine, and then the other guy (whose name escapes me for now) travelled back in time and pretended he had invented it.

But I think we are using “invent” in a different sense here :)

Thomas Newcomen’s 1712 Newcomen steam engine

Not my hero?
Hero

“It is not known whether the aeolipile was put to any practical use in ancient times, and if it was seen as a pragmatic device, a whimsical novelty, an object of reverence, or some other thing.”

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

I think the kettle is probably a fanciful invention.
He did however apply himself to improving the steam engine and it may well be that a whistle stop on a kettle could perhaps have been inspiring for a condenser?

I mean it’s possible that Watt did invent the steam engine, and then the other guy (whose name escapes me for now) travelled back in time and pretended he had invented it.

But I think we are using “invent” in a different sense here :)

Thomas Newcomen’s 1712 Newcomen steam engine

Watt invented the external condenser, which made steam engines much more powerful and efficient. Newcomen’s engine condensed the steam internally and relied on vacuum pressure for the power stroke. Watt’s engine used expanding steam to push on the power stroke.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

And there is absolutely no absolute proof of absolutely anything.

There are however very good reasons to think that some things are true, and there are also very good reasons to think that some other things are invented.

seems a bit unfair

What would Mr Gödel have to say about that one?

fair, but why is Gödel necessary

—

slightly more seriously though, didn’t he say that not all mathematics teachers, and not all of their truths

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

seems a bit unfair

What would Mr Gödel have to say about that one?

fair, but why is Gödel necessary

—

slightly more seriously though, didn’t he say that not all mathematics teachers, and not all of their truths

I think a reference was made to the possibility that no thing is absolutely absolute?

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What would Mr Gödel have to say about that one?

fair, but why is Gödel necessary

—

slightly more seriously though, didn’t he say that not all mathematics teachers, and not all of their truths

I think a reference was made to the possibility that no thing is absolutely absolute?

As some genius used to say, Beware Those Universal Quantifiers ¡

Who is your Lord?

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

seems a bit unfair

What would Mr Gödel have to say about that one?

fair, but why is Gödel necessary

—

Good question :)

Bubblecar said:

>think of it (God) as a conceptual device that transforms the pervasive indifference of the universe into something less potentially hostile

You don’t seem to see the simple mistake you’re making here.

You admit that “god” is a product of the human imagination, projected into what you call an “indifferent” universe, for the sake of pretending the universe does actually “care about us”.

But if you accept that it’s entirely unreasonable to expect the universe outside of human minds and societies to “care about” humans, what point can there be in pretending otherwise?

Far better to accept that human concerns are rightfully human concerns – ethics, politics, all the rest of it are products of our own minds and cultures, whether or not we pretend there are gods shaping these things.

So let’s not pretend there are any gods – let’s take full responsibility for own ethics and our own behaviour, and tell the imaginary magical critters to sod off back to more primitive times.

your secret God could be biohistory, receding into the past, increasingly rendered a computational intangible, all that physics that went into making you not just a possibility, but then a certainty it seems given you clearly arrived here, exist, and i’d ask what do you know of all the physics right at this moment that keeps you a viable organism, i’d expect the answer is not much, perhaps as much as you want to know, for your purposes, saves you a whole lot of inconvenient complexity, loading up your memory and the computational wetware on your shoulders, and how fortunate is it homeostasis cruises along and keeps it simple for you, helps you ignore a whole lot, and allows time for intellectual indulgences, such as this conversation for example, or creative indulgences

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

>think of it (God) as a conceptual device that transforms the pervasive indifference of the universe into something less potentially hostile

You don’t seem to see the simple mistake you’re making here.

You admit that “god” is a product of the human imagination, projected into what you call an “indifferent” universe, for the sake of pretending the universe does actually “care about us”.

But if you accept that it’s entirely unreasonable to expect the universe outside of human minds and societies to “care about” humans, what point can there be in pretending otherwise?

Far better to accept that human concerns are rightfully human concerns – ethics, politics, all the rest of it are products of our own minds and cultures, whether or not we pretend there are gods shaping these things.

So let’s not pretend there are any gods – let’s take full responsibility for own ethics and our own behaviour, and tell the imaginary magical critters to sod off back to more primitive times.

your secret God could be biohistory, receding into the past, increasingly rendered a computational intangible, all that physics that went into making you not just a possibility, but then a certainty it seems given you clearly arrived here, exist, and i’d ask what do you know of all the physics right at this moment that keeps you a viable organism, i’d expect the answer is not much, perhaps as much as you want to know, for your purposes, saves you a whole lot of inconvenient complexity, loading up your memory and the computational wetware on your shoulders, and how fortunate is it homeostasis cruises along and keeps it simple for you, helps you ignore a whole lot, and allows time for intellectual indulgences, such as this conversation for example, or creative indulgences

Well presumably you think you’re making a coherent point, but it’s not surviving translation.

I wrote this proof that God doesn’t exist about a month ago. Enjoy.

We looked for God.

We looked into the human heart, no God. We looked into the human brain, no God. We looked through the air, the water, the Earth clear to the centre of the Earth, no God. We looked into all sorts of vibrations that surround us all, no God. We looked at the planets, the moons, the asteroids, the comets, the interstellar dust, no God. We looked at the Sun, right down to its core, no God. We looked behind the stars right out to the most distant parts of the visible universe, no God. We looked into the dark parts of the universe, no God. We looked back in time to the origins of human intelligence, to the origins of humanity, to the origins of the solar system, to the origins of the universe 13.77 billion years ago, no God. We looked at the very small, the cell down to smaller than the smallest subatomic particle, no God. We even looked into parallel universes and multiverses, no God.

No God.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

>think of it (God) as a conceptual device that transforms the pervasive indifference of the universe into something less potentially hostile

You don’t seem to see the simple mistake you’re making here.

You admit that “god” is a product of the human imagination, projected into what you call an “indifferent” universe, for the sake of pretending the universe does actually “care about us”.

But if you accept that it’s entirely unreasonable to expect the universe outside of human minds and societies to “care about” humans, what point can there be in pretending otherwise?

Far better to accept that human concerns are rightfully human concerns – ethics, politics, all the rest of it are products of our own minds and cultures, whether or not we pretend there are gods shaping these things.

So let’s not pretend there are any gods – let’s take full responsibility for own ethics and our own behaviour, and tell the imaginary magical critters to sod off back to more primitive times.

your secret God could be biohistory, receding into the past, increasingly rendered a computational intangible, all that physics that went into making you not just a possibility, but then a certainty it seems given you clearly arrived here, exist, and i’d ask what do you know of all the physics right at this moment that keeps you a viable organism, i’d expect the answer is not much, perhaps as much as you want to know, for your purposes, saves you a whole lot of inconvenient complexity, loading up your memory and the computational wetware on your shoulders, and how fortunate is it homeostasis cruises along and keeps it simple for you, helps you ignore a whole lot, and allows time for intellectual indulgences, such as this conversation for example, or creative indulgences

Well presumably you think you’re making a coherent point, but it’s not surviving translation.

yeah fair enough, didn’t do much worse than the numerous mis-attributions and whatever else in your lot