This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

voxu's Profile

voxu's Avatar Joined over 1 year ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by voxu

More Discussions by voxu

Latest Comments by voxu

Go to: Para-naturalistic theories cannot lead to practical engineering

voxu's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by voxu

Again, you aren't describing science. What you ARE describing is anomaly. One off events that, yes, can happen, and because of Quantum events, should. But I will refer back to my gasoline metaphor. Even if I conducted the experiment 1 million times and, anomalously, it failed to ignite 1000 times. I would not presume that to do it a third time (or a hundredth) and get to 900,000 consecutive ignitions that I am approaching a "non-ignition" event and then stand in the pool. I would try to better understand the anomalies because there is SOMETHING I missed, the overwhelming odds scream of it. I will even relate a story of something I witnessed that at first impression seemed to be a UFO. I spent time in the Gulf (Desert Storm [manufactured Middle East debacle number one, at least in my lifetime]. Perimeter guard duty , night (Im painting a picture) 3 hours in ~midnight. Prior to the ground invasion This is about as featureless a landscape as can be imagined, aside from treading water in the open sea. Looking at the sky, you can imagine the number of planes in the sky, if not, there were a hell of a lot of them. I had night vision goggles which made them much more visible. Being that isolated with 0 light pollution makes the night sky spectacular. On one occasion I saw something higher and faster than any of the planes I could see without the NVG's. Struck, I think I'm seeing a UFO, a personal dream BTW. Now I WANT to believe that it is, let me make that much clear. I'm enough of a skeptic even at 21 (then) to settle down. Then I see another and a third. It hadn't immediately dawned on me that satellites should or would be visible to the naked eye, given that isolation. Subsequent observations with and without the goggles on, in some cases consecutive nights confirmed it for me. I'm not trying to get pedantic about it but if it is an unmeasured observation in a dynamic environment without controls, the overwhelming odds say that it's an error in the observation of what actually happened or anomalous which makes it statistically negligible in either case. Its not limiting science but it is defining it within the confines of what can be verified (if there has to be a limit I will concede that one but only because if it cannot be verified read:verifiable then it's not of use) . Anything else, I believe, becomes a twisted synonym for science and is a leap backwards.

Tue, 14 Aug 2012 01:58:51 UTC | #950769

Go to: Para-naturalistic theories cannot lead to practical engineering

voxu's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by voxu

reply to blue water

Forget repeatability because the world doesn't always work that way, each perception is a data point and you have to work with that.

"Forget it" I think not. I choose to believe that EVERY SINGLE TIME I (or anyone for that matter) strike a lit match (in the presence of enough Oxygen) to gasoline that it will, understandably, burst into flame. That is how my world works. I can be forgiven for the oversimplification I hope, but I'd like to see (perceive, to use your terminology) the "data point" in which that fails to be true. I can certainly "perceive" of a condition where it fails, but that's my over-active imagination. Repeatable experiment, drawing the same conclusion is the basis of the scientific method, when testing any theory, no?

Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:51:02 UTC | #950755

Go to: Para-naturalistic theories cannot lead to practical engineering

voxu's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by voxu

reply to: Comment 20 by jfmanning

I get the logic, but it doesn't satisfy. I'd ask: if you "get the logic" what condition is not satisfied. Do you mean that you aren't satisfied, or people in general aren't convinced?

How improbable can it be? It IS! You label this as a banal appeal, the improbability of which, you nearly define in your last paragraph, I quote: the workings of the deployed universe are mysterious enough to inspire awe, astonishment, and perhaps even reverence True enough, to be sure, and I'm not, maybe, understanding your tack. I think you're saying that the overwhelming majority of people aren't satisfied with the explanations given because the improbability is too much to wrap their heads around, even given the majesty of its emergence without "omnipotent" assistance. I, personally, find that less than banal. You seem convinced, I should say now. Could it be that your apologizing for those who can't (or won't) accept the theory?

With regard to your mention of entropy. I don't necessarily think that it bears much consideration given the timescales and magnitudes conceivable. There is still plenty of time for things to "level off" as it were. Localized (for us) areas of complexity are to be expected in any system. 2nd law states equilibrium will be reached magnitude and scale aside. We just aren't going to see it happen, I hope.

Mon, 13 Aug 2012 19:12:11 UTC | #950754

Go to: Celebrating Curiosity on Twitter

voxu's Avatar Jump to comment 65 by voxu

As a US Citizen I have mixed feelings about the Mars Curiosity mission. As a technical achievement it is totally amazing. Certainly better than hurtling a satellite at better than escape velocity into the surface because someone "forgot" to make the conversion from the original metric calculations (side: I don't know why we haven't accepted the standard the rest of the world has). Looking at the pictures gave me goose bumps (to be fair they always have) and a sense of awe that almost brought tears. It is silly, I know. I think I feel that way only because a group of very intelligent people diligently set their minds to a task, including engineering an untried landing maneuver, and ACCOMPLISHED it, flawlessly. The actual landing is the end result and in some way only the exclamation point. The remarkable thing is what we (HUMANS) are capable of when focused on a goal. The mixed feelings come from the realization of what we as a nation don't do, given the resources we have at our disposal, literally. Further, what we're likely to learn from this mission is hardly more than what we already know. I believe we will eventually be colonizing. That's not a likely outcome in any of our lives, nonetheless I think it an inevitability. I believe future missions should have this as a focus rather than trundling around multi-million dollar remote control cars scraping, drilling, and photographing a landscape we can see perfectly well from orbit. I also think more countries should be involved with the science of the whole affair. For what it's worth.

Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:08:45 UTC | #950734

More Comments by voxu