| Poll: What view of origins is more profound? This poll is closed. |
|||
| Naturalistic | 10 | 76.92% | |
| Assisted | 2 | 15.38% | |
| Literal | 1 | 7.69% | |
| Total | 13 vote(s) | 100% | |
| * You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
|
What view of Origins is more profound?
|
 (October 15, 2009 at 3:36 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: From my understanding of reality 1 never equals one but sequential measurements define the nominal value as 1 with a standard deviation derived from all the sources of variation.  ??????
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Sae,
I'm talking about statistics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics My statement was a little broad and therefore somewhat inaccurate because, yes, one apple IS always one apple but the A=A principle is too inclusive and doesn't account for the sources of variation such as, time, temperature, device used to measure, person using device. I saw a video once where this math genius was preaching about how math should progress from algebra into statistics instead of calculus because stats is a more useful discipline than calculus and I agree with him. If you can grasp the concepts in the wiki it would do wonders for your perception of reality as it did mine. I also backed up my understanding with years of practice in the lab in which I work. I've learned that reality isn't as solid as I once thought. I still think there is an objective reality but it is more like a marshmallow than it is like a rock. Rhizo RE: What view of Origins is more profound?
October 15, 2009 at 4:32 pm
(This post was last modified: October 15, 2009 at 4:36 pm by Violet.)
Realities change... is that what you are referring to? Although I haven't finished The Difference yet, perhaps you are referring to this very important part of the Identity?:
(The Location is still a larger work in progress... there are a few examples i haven't fully decided upon... Anyway  Each of those variations... time... temperature... devices used... people using.... etc: all define A. A is itself... and when it changes: A is redefined. But until A is changed so radically that it disbecomes itself... it will always remain 'A'. I'm not saying it is wrong to use statistics... I'm just defending that the fire is a fire until it is no longer a fire Kind of like how removing one of my legs makes me one leg less human... and removing both of my legs makes me one legless human  Until you have removed enough of my body to stop calling me human: the changes are not radical enough to declare me inhuman 
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
No, I am talking about one thing. Even if you measure the same thing over and over again you will get different values. Those values come together to form a bell curve that describes the measurement as a statistic, and you can "know" the measurement by looking at the value that is indicated by the central tendency of the curve. Central tendency is determined by either mean, mode, or median value.
For example, if you have a sword you could measure the weight (or length, width, shinyness, or whatever characteristic you are using to assign value) of the sword 11 times and you will get 11 different numbers that will fit within a normal distribution shaped like a bell. The sources that will bring the most variance to the measurement are the measuring device and the person measuring, but the sword will change weight over time. Rhizo
Oh, I don't disagree with inaccuracies... that's why we use statistics: to get the best idea. However, measuring the same thing over and over again doesn't change its weight any more than looking at it over and over again.
Or I could just perfectly measure it the first time The sword itself weighs a set amount depending on where it is... and unless we get mind-boggelingly lucky (see http://www.stonemakerargument.com/2.html ): all of our inaccuracies are our own fault. The sword has a certain length, width, weight, shyinyness, whatever... but it is in measuring it that we encounter problems.See, A = A, but we might think A = B because of an inaccuracy, misinterpretation, etc.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Sae,
What I am saying is the value actually changes. The sword will change weight. Reality isn't as static as the our mental models, hence my statement that reality is more like marshmallows than rocks. Rhizo
Ah, I think I see what you are saying now. That A is a generality that is constantly changing? That A is like a marshmallow constantly in flux?
Wouldn't a jello-cube describe this better then?
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
Sae,
Stats 101 was taught to me and they used marshmallows vs. rocks to describe sample variation as well as what could cause variation from other sources so I used it too; jello works also . If you think to the molecular level, everything is composed more of space than of substance and, unless the temperature is zero Kelvin, everything is jiggling around. Metal oxides form at a certain rate so that would cause a difference in weight. Moisture is either being released or absorbed by the handle so that would also cause a difference in weight. Am I splitting hairs? yeah, sorta, but I have done a bunch of measuring and statistical analysis and have been surprised at how much the sample actually changes. We can eliminate sources of variation using statistical analysis methods. My opinion of how static reality is has been greatly affected.Rhizo
Of course, and according to string theory: we're the result of vibrating one-dimensional strings (because they are vibrating, it could be said that they are always changing)
However, does A disbecome A from something as simple as a missing ink-dot? Nope Nor does a sword disbecome itself due to a slight change of weight? Not at all.Are both of them redefined slightly from any change? Of course. but that definition is never more or less than itself because of any change. I am still me... even if I turn green and grow sprouts out of my head "I" and "me" are now somewhat differently defined... but they will always be equal to themself What you are referring to is The Change as a Result of The Difference... specifically The Change to The Identity as a Result of Difference Okay, the names might need a little work... 
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
 (October 15, 2009 at 2:20 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: God is as awesome in comparison to me.. and I can appreciate nature exactly as you can appreciate it Evie. Indeed, as I said: I was just speaking from opinion, of my own aesthetics. What is meaningful is a subjective matter. Of course theists can appreciate nature: If I was to say that believing in God means you can't appreciate nature then I would be being totally fallacious - because that is a total non-sequitur! EvF |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
