Re: The Joy of *small* business

On 12/22/24 6:28 AM, D wrote:

  On Sun, 22 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
 

On 22/12/2024 09:31, rbowman wrote:

On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 02:12:43 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>

    Those poor people ... caught between an ever-growing mountain of
    facts/evidence and equally-persuasive *belief* (which requires no
    facts). They TRY to find ways to splice it all together. It doesn't
    work well ...

>
A friend was a Young Earther despite being a proficient programmer. Given
the premise God can do anything it's no problem for him to whip up the
Grand Canyon with all its geological layers in his spare time. He was also
well rehearsed in the creationist arguments against evolution.
>

>
The problem is, that both the scientific narrative and the creationist one are complete, logical and unassailable.
>
One posits a supernatural 'Big Bang' from which time, space energy and the laws of nature miraculously sprang, and the other posits a big Creation from which  time, space energy and the laws of nature miraculously sprang, just already formed as a complete *fake*, like someone today constructing a '1000 year old' house. Complete with faked history.
>
The only difference is the latter big bang has a sentient intelligence with a Plan in charge.
>
Really we only reject it on the slender basis of Occam - it's simply more complicated than necessary to explain this shit.

 I'd add to that that one is a process and open to change (which has happened and does happen occasionally) and the other a religion.

   MAYbe an advantage there ... but maybe NOT. Theists will
   say they don't NEED 'process' or 'corrections' because
   they were magically provided with the RIGHT ANSWER
   long back. They just see us bickering about whether
   2+2 (common conditions) = 4 for a century or two
   when they knew all along.

I have mixed feelings about Occam, since Occam tends to shut down waaaay too many discussions waaay too quickly. Who is to say what is, in reality "simpler" or less complex, if the understanding of the questions is lacking?

   Occam HAS his uses. However sometimes things ARE complicated.
   Read my post here to Mr. Natural about 'negative time'
   findings ......
   https://phys.org/news/2024-12-scientists-negative-quantum.html
   As I said to Mr. Natural, I think we've kinda reached The Point -
   where human IQ just really can't COPE with the complexities of
   the Real Universe. The initial 'quantum-statistical' take on
   the negative time thing kinda smells - and there's likely only
   a handful of people in the world that can even wrap their
   brains around THAT. Next phase, very soon, NOBODY can wrap
   their brains around it.
   Yes, we can maybe make the "AI"s proceed - but we WON'T
   really understand what they come up with or why. At that
   point it all becomes 'magic' again. Chant the spells
   and wave the wand ......
   May as well simply say Ahura Mazda just breathed it all
   into existence and set all the paths/rules ....
   No, I do NOT like it ... but this is where we've wound
   up ... and after just barely 200 years of Real Science.
   So let's not feel TOO damned proud, TOO damned superior.
   In the end, not TOO long, we're just gonna be another
   species of theists with their 'revealed truths'.
   Better find a way, quick, to push up human IQ into
   the 500 range, WITHOUT causing insanity.