Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Holmes

  1. It is you who just cherry picked, you just said one perception is not real yet another is!
  2. I think you are raising important questions, questions that go to the core of what science is. Scientific explanations are always reductionist yet here we are with an irreducible thing we call "time", it seems time cannot be explained, cannot be decomposed. Einstein reframed time into events, special relativity deals with events rather than directly dealing with time, a train passing my window that coincides with my clock showing 17:23:19 is an event to Einstein and the special theory of relativity is about how the things that comprise an event are perceived differently by different observers. This bring the subjective experiences of observers into play. You cannot exclude perception though. You cannot propose arguments and explanations in science based on observations without factoring in an observer.
  3. The thread's title is about the existence of time, that's a profound question that must include perception. We do not measure the passage of time, we instead make two observations and then an inference is drawn that time has passed. The person seeing a wall clock who is then given a general anesthetic will, upon waking see that the two clock readings differ by seven hours yet they feel like just a moment apart. I am arguing that that perceived time is real, it exists and is observed by the individual, the calculated elapsed time differs from what they perceive. I don't know and neither does anyone else, there is no proof that anything exists other than self, cogito, ergo sum. I thought we were having a polite conversation, it seems not. That's a philosophical claim not a scientific one.
  4. Mathematics is deterministic, computability theory is a logical theory that reduces mathematics to logic, there are at least two approaches to computability theory Turing machines and lambda calculus, it has been proven that Turing machines and lambda calculus - though very different - are logically equivalent, both are of course deterministic. This is why I asked for an example of a "non-deterministic computation".
  5. Which statement? this one "All theories of computability (Turing machines, Lambda calculus) are fully deterministic."? Well both lambda calculus and Turing machines are regarded as logically equivalent systems for describing computability. Computability means literally calculating, doing what humans can do (and at one time only humans could do). All the rules of arithmetic for example can be described using a Turing machine or lambda calculus. There are concepts of non-deterministic Turing machines but these do not appear in computability theory. The Mandelbrot set is fully deterministic.
  6. Yes, you're quite right actually, I accept that and retract the statement.
  7. In which case you cannot support the proposition that it does exist surely? you can only believe it exist. Yes, I do understand this, my questions are about why do we think our perception of time is not just as real as someone else's. "I spoke to the blond for a short while, she was cute" and "I waited in the dentist for ages and ages" might both be true statements.
  8. Yes I know there are non-deterministic systems, but there is no concept of non-determinism in computation, in mathematics or arithmetic for example. All theories of computability (Turing machines, Lambda calculus) are fully deterministic. For example calculating the square root of Pi is deterministic, the same steps performed, always yield the same result.
  9. That's an insult. No. My disagreeing with you and some of the presumptions I see here in this thread is no justification for claiming I am not educated, my asking questions that you disapprove of does not give you the right to claim that I am derailing the discussion. I see, so you think we should censor such discussions, only tolerate opinions that are supportive of the transgender lobby. What biological facts have I not accepted? I asked the question about feeling like an owl to help make it more apparent how absurd the claim itself is. A man claiming to feel like a woman means he can recognize such feelings as feelings unique to women but since he is not a woman then how did he acquire an ability to recognize when his feeling are "woman feelings"? How you feel is how you feel, it is personal, it is subjective by definition. A biological male always feels like a biological male by definition, you can't feel like a man or feel like a woman, you just have feelings. Two biological males may feel differently but they both feel like a biological male. To say "I feel like a woman" is to stereotype women. Men and women have feelings, to say "I feel like a woman" is nonsensical, for example do I feel like a man or do I feel like a woman who feels like a man? If you want to discuss this subject then I suggest you stop insulting people with whom you might disagree, argue your case using logic and reason do not resort to emotional, inflammatory language.
  10. That's not an answer to my question, its another question. So if I said I feel like an owl feels, you'd believe me?
  11. You can't remove human perception though, how can you experience anything unless you perceive?
  12. The burning of the candle creates soot, the atmosphere in the vicinity of the flame would have a high concentration of soot which is carbon, so I surmised that this region might be capable of having a current induced within in it.
  13. Firstly I don't "condemn" anyone, transgender people included. To say "I feel a like a woman" when you are a man is nonsensical I think. Now if a transgender woman declares they are a transgender woman then how do they know? what reasoning do they go through that leads to the conclusion "I'm really a woman trapped in a man's body" what exactly is the reasoning?
  14. I too have read similar reports, some dating back centuries. Has anyone here ever light a nightlight (candle) put that into a microwave oven and switched the oven on? It is quite remarkable, not saying its related to ball lightning or anything, I suspect the burning candle creates a conductive path from the graphite and the microwaves induce a current in the graphite, but it is spectacular (no idea if this can damage the oven).
  15. Fair enough but we now enter the realm of "free will" and all that that entails. Do we ever actually choose anything? are our actions inevitable? But with the transgender stuff, I don't see how one can say "I feel like a woman" when one is a man. How can one recognize what a woman "feels like"?
  16. Words matter, choose them carefully, say too little rather than too much, do not alienate your audience, no matter what, that's how I strive to behave, not always successfully but I do try.
  17. I assume this is your way of saying my comments were valueless, tiresome, very well then, so be it.
  18. Emotions are often a source of trouble in forums. Andrew, you made a small spelling error, this was raised, nothing more was said, it was just brought to your attention. How did you respond? Why did you not just say "Thank you" or something?
  19. No I am not. Yet you are the source of the strawman not I, you are choosing to abandon the topic and sneakily introduce a different topic, it seems this is all you can do. If you continue to do this at my expense, I'll continue to correct you.
  20. You wrote: You did not say "this argument reminds me of this other thing I’ve heard elsewhere", you seem to be making dishonest claims now. Read what you wrote, it's there above. You did not attack or challenge the premises, logic or reasoning of my argument, instead you declare (but do not show) that my argument is logically equivalent to some other (unstated) argument and that other (unstated) argument is based on "ridiculous thinking" and so declare that my argument is therefore ridiculous. This does meet the definition of a strawman, you can refuse to accept this fact, you can choose to deny reality, you may even really truly believe you did nothing wrong, but the facts are the facts. My accusation that you are habitually posting strawman arguments is not sloppy thinking either, the evidence speaks for itself. If you want to challenge my argument then challenge my argument not someone else's argument, please deal with what I actually write not what you wish I had written. You need to understand iNow that if you post a strawman argument then an opponent has every right to challenge you and point this out, when I call out your use of strawman tactics I attack it for what it is, I quote what you have written, your own words reveal the truth about you. The strawman tactic is an attempt to change the subject from one you are incapable of debating to something else that doesn't even need debating. I'm always happy to see humor in a discussion and levity, but I do have a right in a rule based forum like this to call out strawman arguments, it is rude and insulting to use them. This is a scientific themed discussion forum, formality and rigor are part of science.
  21. That's true. How can we tell though which one is real or not?
  22. I'm not sure that it is analogous Swanson, left-handed or right-handed is determined by my genes as is my sex. I suggest you do not express opinions publicly like this if you are unwilling for those opinions to be scrutinized or challenged.
  23. Can you give an example of a non-deterministic computation? Computability, "computation", is defined as a wholly deterministic process so I do not see how we can have a non-deterministic computation.
  24. Life exists on earth but that's all we have experimentally verified, until we find an example of life not on Earth we must - if we are being scientific - retain an open mind and consider the possibility that life may be special, may only exist here.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.