Who is an atheist?

Who is an atheist?

There are 9499 comments on the The Sydney Morning Herald story from May 30, 2010, titled Who is an atheist?. In it, The Sydney Morning Herald reports that:

In my last blog there was a moderately spectacular blue between various parties .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Sydney Morning Herald.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9572 Aug 25, 2013
Normand Winnipeg wrote:
--- atheist are those who reject GOD'S WAYS and therefor they reject GOD... The lake of fire is waiting for them...
Atheists. If you can't convince them with religious lies, try threatening them with religious lies, eh?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9573 Aug 25, 2013
Normand Winnipeg wrote:
--- atheist are those who reject GOD'S WAYS and therefor they reject GOD... The lake of fire is waiting for them...
Thank you for your display of seething hate.

Your example of horrid bigotry and terrorist-worship is duly noted and forwarded to the appropriate authorities.

Remember: only **TERRORISTS** use torture.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9574 Aug 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, you have to be clear about what you mean by 'time travel': we are all traveling into the future at the rate of 1 minute every 60 seconds. Nothing strange about that.
Also, observers moving at high speeds with respect to each other will disagree about when two events happen at the same time: the term 'now' is not physically well defined when changing reference frames. This shows your statement that 'now' is the only thing that exists is simply wrong.
The best way to talk about time travel is in the context of general relativity. Since different observers can disagree about whether things happen at the same time, the concept of the 'future' is vague. That said, there is an observer-independent concept called the 'future light cone'(there is also a past light cone). All causality happens from the past light cone to the future light cone.
The statement that time travel is impossible is, essentially, the claim that there are no *loops* in spacetime that are always pointed into the future light cones (closed, time-like loops). I think every working physicist believes such are impossible in the real world, but we don't have any good mathematical reasons for saying so.
I'm quite a fan of time-travel SciFi. It's interesting to read how the "magic black boxes" [that make it possible] change in these stories from the early 50's to the present time.

But you have nailed the real problem with any time travel: looping.

This is, of course, assuming that when you travel in "time" you are not simply moving to a different universe altogether.

That eliminates the loop effect and solves the causality conundrums -- but introduces lots of other problems.

Since: Aug 13

Delhi, India

#9575 Aug 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
...This holds for two line segments, one of which is twice the length of the other. A quick way to see this is to imagine the segments to be parallel, the short one above the long one. Draw the line through the left endpoints and find where it intersects the line drawn through the right endpoints. To make the pairing, just draw a line through this intersection point, through any point on the short line and extend until it intersects the long line. That gives the correspondence between points on the short and long lines. Clearly, each point on each line is associated with exactly one point on the other. So the two line segments have the same cardinality.
Well Cantor had to say stuff that was counter-intuitive. But I am not giving up so soon :)

Cause even though the mapping may be one to one, the points on the 2 meter line segment now have to be longer than the points on the 1 meter line. If all points are identical, then some points on the longer line must thus be skipped as you draw lines of correspondence. OK you may say instead of drawing infinite no. of lines to do the mapping, we continuously sweep the line that establishes one to one correspondence, then there is clear one to one points in each line this way. CRAP.
-But the size of the points must be different on both lines this way, as is apparent from the geometry. Now the points on 2 meter line must be larger than points on shorter 1m line; so now points on 2m line are now of non-zero length. Which can not be. So cantor disproved!

Second approach Approach-
Also can we show that their cardinality are NOT EQUAL. Illustration:- If we place the two line segments parallel again, but align left points of both to fall on a perpendicular transversal. Now we sweep the perpendicular transversal over both lines from left to right. NOW we still have one to one correspondence with all points on 1 meter line with all points all points on 2 meter line upto the mid point!
Since there are points still left over on 2 meter line, thus the cardinality are shown to be NOT EQUAL Infact cardinality of 2m line is more.

(or we can just sweep the line used to establish one to one mapping from a point OTHER than the point of intersection of the two transversals joining the ends of the two || lines. If we sweep this line for the mapping, after it has covered all points of one line (reached its other end), points will always be left on the other line, hence cardinality shown not equal)
<quoted text>From a purely mathematical perspective, an n-dimensional space is just one that is described by n decimal numbers. So, three dimensional space requires numbers associated with left-right, back-front, and up-down:(x,y,z). There is no real problem looking at four coordinates, say (x,y,z,w), and doing the same type of geometric/algebraic manipulations that are done for 2D and 3D. There are even infinite dimensional versions that are well-known and actively studied.
By the way, this is why I described the surface of a sphere as *two* dimensional: you only need two coordinates to locate a point on the surface of a sphere (latitude and longitude, for example). It is a *curved* two-dimensional surface, though.
What I was merely saying was, we can not just integrate an nth dimension space to 'create' another dimension. The results will remain in a mathematician's mind only. Integrating wont create a dimension, but if a dimension already exists, then the integration can be used to describe it. Describing stuff that don't exist, is fiction no matter how interesting.

[Forget the 4th spatial dimension, Can you show any of the 'known' dimensions are for real, and not just "IN OUR MINDS"!]

2D spherical surface is interesting. We sort of live on one.

Since: Aug 13

Delhi, India

#9576 Aug 25, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
Time is definitely a physical entity. It can be distorted through mass and energy.
A watch placed higher will be running faster? How does that happen?
It is also a valid dimension since a point in spacetime requires three dimensions to locate it in space and another one for the position in time. That gives four coordinates.
Yes to locate a point in spacetime would require (x,y,z,t). I know that. In that sense, time is a dimension.

But will keep trying to think 'out of the box'!
Now, when studying gravity, it turns out that this four dimensional spacetime is *curved*.
Like a curved 2D plane? Hmmm, boggles the mind.

What if time flows UNevenly?

Since: Aug 13

Delhi, India

#9577 Aug 25, 2013
Another proof simple now THAT NO TWO LINE SEGMENTS CAN HAVE EQUAL CARDINALITY-

1. Let us start with the assumption that any two line segments have equal cardinality.

2. Take any 2 line segments say line AB and line CD of arbitrary lengths.

3. Consider arbitrary point P on line CD.

4.Now segments AB and CP must have Cardinality equal (if any 2 line segments must have equal cardinality). But now the points of portion PD are left over, ie extra. Hence line segments AB and CD can not have equal cardinality.

5. Since AB and CD are any two arbitrary line segments, hence now:- no two line segments can be of equal cardinality.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9578 Aug 26, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Cantor had to say stuff that was counter-intuitive. But I am not giving up so soon :)
Cause even though the mapping may be one to one, the points on the 2 meter line segment now have to be longer than the points on the 1 meter line. If all points are identical, then some points on the longer line must thus be skipped as you draw lines of correspondence. OK you may say instead of drawing infinite no. of lines to do the mapping, we continuously sweep the line that establishes one to one correspondence, then there is clear one to one points in each line this way. CRAP.
Exactly. And all that is required is that there be at least one such correspondence.
-But the size of the points must be different on both lines this way, as is apparent from the geometry.
And this is wrong because points have zero size. The correspondence follows because non-parallel lines always intersect at exactly one point.
Now the points on 2 meter line must be larger than points on shorter 1m line; so now points on 2m line are now of non-zero length. Which can not be. So cantor disproved!
Nope, all points in both lines are of zero length. But there is a correspondence between them.
Second approach Approach-
Also can we show that their cardinality are NOT EQUAL. Illustration:- If we place the two line segments parallel again, but align left points of both to fall on a perpendicular transversal. Now we sweep the perpendicular transversal over both lines from left to right. NOW we still have one to one correspondence with all points on 1 meter line with all points all points on 2 meter line upto the mid point!
All you showed is that *this* particular correspondence fails, not that all possible correspondences fail. We only need one to eastablish equality of cardinalities.

Once again, infinite sets can be in correspondence with proper subsets of themselves. Remember the positive integers vs. the even ones?
Since there are points still left over on 2 meter line, thus the cardinality are shown to be NOT EQUAL Infact cardinality of 2m line is more.
(or we can just sweep the line used to establish one to one mapping from a point OTHER than the point of intersection of the two transversals joining the ends of the two || lines. If we sweep this line for the mapping, after it has covered all points of one line (reached its other end), points will always be left on the other line, hence cardinality shown not equal)
So this particular correspondence fails. A correspo0ndence that fails in this way only shows the cardinality of one set is greater than *or equal* to the cardinality of the other.
Can you show any of the 'known' dimensions are for real, and not just "IN OUR MINDS"!
Can you show that the chair I am sitting on is not just in my mind? What standard do you use?
2D spherical surface is interesting. We sort of live on one.
Yes.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9579 Aug 26, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
Another proof simple now THAT NO TWO LINE SEGMENTS CAN HAVE EQUAL CARDINALITY-
1. Let us start with the assumption that any two line segments have equal cardinality.
2. Take any 2 line segments say line AB and line CD of arbitrary lengths.
3. Consider arbitrary point P on line CD.
4.Now segments AB and CP must have Cardinality equal (if any 2 line segments must have equal cardinality). But now the points of portion PD are left over, ie extra. Hence line segments AB and CD can not have equal cardinality.
Thi sis the mistake. For caridnalities, all you need is one correspondence that works, not that all possible correspondences work. In this case, you just showed that the cardinality of AB and of CP are the same and that the cardinality of CD is at least that of CP. But it turns out that all cardinalities here are qual, so there is no issue.
5. Since AB and CD are any two arbitrary line segments, hence now:- no two line segments can be of equal cardinality.
So the cardinality of AB is not the cardinality of AB? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

The problem that you are having is that if A is a subset of B, all that follows is that the cardianlity of A is less than or equal to that of B. They may be equal, even if there are points in B that are not in A.

Essentially, you are showing that cardinality is a very weak way to test sizes of sets. And that is true.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9580 Aug 26, 2013
Sorry about the typos in that last post. I was writing it too quickly (obviously).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9581 Aug 26, 2013
one cube parsec wrote:
<quoted text>
A watch placed higher will be running faster? How does that happen?
That is part of the curvature aspect of time. Actually, someone at the same level as the clock will not see it running anything other than at 'normal' speed. it is someone deeper in the gravity well that will observe the higher clock as ticking faster.

A *very* weak analogy is the latitude lines on the sphere. As you move north from the equator, the lines have smaller length, even though there is still 360 degrees.
What if time flows UNevenly?
That is called 'proper time' and is specific to a particular observer. it is vaguely related to the length of the path in four dimensions. Different paths have different lengths, and so different amount of proper time transpired. The analogy isn't perfect: straight lines in 4D spacetime *maximize* the proper time, while they *minimize* the length.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9582 Aug 26, 2013
One viable theory of the universe:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-all-of...

</sarcasm>
spider

Brandon, UK

#9583 Aug 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is part of the curvature aspect of time. Actually, someone at the same level as the clock will not see it running anything other than at 'normal' speed. it is someone deeper in the gravity well that will observe the higher clock as ticking faster.
A *very* weak analogy is the latitude lines on the sphere. As you move north from the equator, the lines have smaller length, even though there is still 360 degrees.
<quoted text>
That is called 'proper time' and is specific to a particular observer. it is vaguely related to the length of the path in four dimensions. Different paths have different lengths, and so different amount of proper time transpired. The analogy isn't perfect: straight lines in 4D spacetime *maximize* the proper time, while they *minimize* the length.
Your posts are fascinating and as an average guy I offer no opposition to your data,,,, however as I understand things and according to some of the reading I have done in the past,, this all changes in the event that a black hole is introduced,,, do you care to comment or give an explanation.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9585 Aug 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. And all that is required is that there be at least one such correspondence.
<quoted text>
And this is wrong because points have zero size. The correspondence follows because non-parallel lines always intersect at exactly one point.
<quoted text>
Nope, all points in both lines are of zero length. But there is a correspondence between them.
<quoted text>
All you showed is that *this* particular correspondence fails, not that all possible correspondences fail. We only need one to eastablish equality of cardinalities.
Once again, infinite sets can be in correspondence with proper subsets of themselves. Remember the positive integers vs. the even ones?
<quoted text>
So this particular correspondence fails. A correspo0ndence that fails in this way only shows the cardinality of one set is greater than *or equal* to the cardinality of the other.
<quoted text>
Can you show that the chair I am sitting on is not just in my mind? What standard do you use?
<quoted text>
Yes.
Thanks! I had forgotten the positive integers vs even integers thing.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9586 Aug 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
One viable theory of the universe:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-all-of...
</sarcasm>
Heresy!

The correct value is Last Tuesday, 9 am, when the universe was created by the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

We know it was 9am, because the IPU is a fan of Judge Judy, which starts at 9am in her locality.

;)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9587 Aug 26, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
To quote Iron Man 2?

Or more specifically, the character of Tony Stark?

"Here I am in my 40's, and you're still taking me to school"

:)

"Here I am in my 50's and Polymath is still taking me to school"

:D

Since: Aug 13

Crawley, UK

#9588 Aug 27, 2013
nah

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#9589 Aug 27, 2013
spider wrote:
<quoted text>
Your posts are fascinating and as an average guy I offer no opposition to your data,,,, however as I understand things and according to some of the reading I have done in the past,, this all changes in the event that a black hole is introduced,,, do you care to comment or give an explanation.
What is said still applies to black holes. Someone deeper in the gravity well is seen by those farther out as having slower clocks. Crossing that event horizon makes a difference as to whether they can see you at all, though.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9590 Aug 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
What is said still applies to black holes. Someone deeper in the gravity well is seen by those farther out as having slower clocks. Crossing that event horizon makes a difference as to whether they can see you at all, though.
Indeed. But hanging out right at the event horizon? Could be a sort of forward-only time machine.

Provided you can figure out how to escape later.

:)

There was a whole series of SciFi books written around this idea, the Heechee by someone or other (I forget who---it was a while ago).

Here we go: Wiki to the rescue! It was Frederik Pohl.

" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heechee" ;
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#9592 Aug 27, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
One viable theory of the universe:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/study-all-of...
</sarcasm>
thanks, I love the onion.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#9593 Aug 27, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Heresy!
The correct value is Last Tuesday, 9 am, when the universe was created by the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
We know it was 9am, because the IPU is a fan of Judge Judy, which starts at 9am in her locality.
;)
I certainly hope the invisible pink unicorn decides to become visible some day and explain things to us all. A nice creator would do that, especially if it is a pretty one, as I assume a pink unicorn would be - depending on the shade of pink. Hot pink might be a bit much. also assuming it looks more like a horse than a goat.

Do you think this request could also be addressed to alternate possible creators, or would we be scared to death if we saw the real one and heard from it what it is really up to? I would have more optimism regarding the pink unicorn, though perhaps a flying horse type would be less threatening.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 1 hr Richardfs 5,706
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Brian_G 48,728
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Into The Night 23,542
News In defense of faith 7 hr karl44 6
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 9 hr Uncle Sam 70
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 10 hr Thinking 21,881
News Louisiana Christians reclaim safe space by runn... 16 hr Amused 3
More from around the web