Pissing off the atheists/naturalists

[Will Bouwman]

Science isn’t a game of being right.
It’s a game of being least wrong.

That is your story. I think it is ill informed.

I don’t know which theory is right.
But I know The Big Bang is impossibly wrong.

Georges Lemaître who first proposed what became known as the big bang, suggested that there was at one point what he called a primeval atom - some mote of some stuff/energy which, for reasons unknown, started expanding. The big bang is the expansion of the universe for which there is a lot of evidence. You are welcome to interpret that evidence differently, but to say the big bang is impossible is to misunderstand the big bang.

[Will Bouwman]

If you are neither curious about curiosity nor not curious about curiosity; then you aren’t even curious about why you are wrong.

There is no fence.

Abstract belief produces concrete actions; or lack thereof.

You can’t be curious AND not curious at the same time.

That’s a contradiction - intellectual dishonesty.

Word salad.

[Skepdick]

That is your story. I think it is ill informed.

Funny you should mention it... Would you like me to explain to you how information works?

Georges Lemaître who first proposed what became known as the big bang, suggested that there was at one point what he called a primeval atom - some mote of some stuff/energy which, for reasons unknown, started expanding.

Yeah. it's monotheism all over again. Magic mystery unified singularity.

The big bang is the expansion of the universe for which there is a lot of evidence.

The expansion of the universe is the expansion of the universe. The Big Bang is the metatheory as to how it began.

You are welcome to interpret that evidence differently, but to say the big bang is impossible is to misunderstand the big bang.

I am not talking about the evidence, idiot.

I am talking about the Mathematical impossibility of the metatheory.

[Skepdick]

If you are neither curious about curiosity nor not curious about curiosity; then you aren’t even curious about why you are wrong.

There is no fence.

Abstract belief produces concrete actions; or lack thereof.

You can’t be curious AND not curious at the same time.

That’s a contradiction - intellectual dishonesty.

Word salad.

I agree. That is PRECISELY what neither believing nor not believing is.

Word salad!
Brain fog.
Fence sitting on a non-existing fence.

Seems the light is finally creeping into the void of your skull.

[Gary Childress]

you have woken a heretic.

I've highlighted the part I am responding to.

If it is the case that I am a "heretic", then am I a heretic to good people or am I a heretic to bad people? That's really all I'm interested in knowing.

Both, I suspect. Holding some religious belief doesn't necessarily make anyone a bad person. I think it depends on what punishment they think you deserve for disagreeing with them.

Am I a heretic to people who would do evil or am I a heretic to people who would not do evil?

Same thing really.

And what is "evil"?

I don't use the term much, but in the secular sense, there are plenty of actions that could be described as evil, including some religious practices. What counts as evil in religion depends on the religion, but not complying with the religion is a common theme. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

So I am a heretic to both good people and bad people is 'possibly' true? If so, then why would I be a heretic to both good people and bad people?

[Will Bouwman]

That is your story. I think it is ill informed.

Funny you should mention it... Would you like me to explain to you how information works?

Go for it!

Georges Lemaître who first proposed what became known as the big bang, suggested that there was at one point what he called a primeval atom - some mote of some stuff/energy which, for reasons unknown, started expanding.

Yeah. it's monotheism all over again. Magic mystery unified singularity.

Magic: perhaps. Mystery: certainly. Unified singularity: probably not.

The big bang is the expansion of the universe for which there is a lot of evidence.

The expansion of the universe is the expansion of the universe. The Big Bang is the metatheory as to how it began.

You believe what you like. It is my view that among the various hypotheses for the cause or origin of the universe, the one thing that big bang theories have in common is that the universe started out very small, and is now very big. Not all of those theories insist that the universe started with x,y,z,t of 0,0,0,0. So once more:

The current understanding of nature is Ex Nihilo.

Well no. That's your current understanding of the current understanding. Ex nihilo is one hypothesis, but there are many others.

You are welcome to interpret that evidence differently, but to say the big bang is impossible is to misunderstand the big bang.

I am not talking about the evidence, idiot.

I am talking about the Mathematical impossibility of the metatheory.

Lemaître, as a Catholic priest, pretty much by definition could believe in miracles. I'm sure he would argue that a mathematical impossibility is not impossible for an omnipotent God. I don't believe that, but I'm quite happy to sit on the fence and admit I can't rule it out.

[Will Bouwman]

So I am a heretic to both good people and bad people is 'possibly' true? If so, then why would I be a heretic to both good people and bad people?

If you can find people whose religious beliefs are the same as yours, you have found your temple. To everyone else with religious views, you're a heretic. Some of those people are good, some bad. Don't worry about it.

[Skepdick]

That is your story. I think it is ill informed.

Funny you should mention it... Would you like me to explain to you how information works?

Go for it!

Georges Lemaître who first proposed what became known as the big bang, suggested that there was at one point what he called a primeval atom - some mote of some stuff/energy which, for reasons unknown, started expanding.

Yeah. it's monotheism all over again. Magic mystery unified singularity.

Magic: perhaps. Mystery: certainly. Unified singularity: probably not.

That's peculiar use of "probably" for somebody who doesn't understand information.

Isn't this one of those situations where you are supposed to say "I don't have a framework in which to interpret the probability"?

Surely as a fence-sitter such as yourself it would make sense to weigh the evidence as being 50/50?

To say probably not; or probably yes amounts to getting off the fence.

You believe what you like. It is my view that among the various hypotheses for the cause or origin of the universe, the one thing that big bang theories have in common is that the universe started out very small, and is now very big. Not all of those theories insist that the universe started with x,y,z,t of 0,0,0,0.

THE universe? THE cause? Your grammar implies 1 universe with 1 cause.

You appear to be incredibly confused, Willus Ignoramus.

Literally a paragraph ago you were telling me that there is NO unified singularity. And now you are telling me about one singularity causing another.

You are welcome to interpret that evidence differently, but to say the big bang is impossible is to misunderstand the big bang.

Willus Ignoramus. I am not talking about the evidence. I am talking about the interpretation framework FOR the evidence.

THE cause of THE universe implies Something => Something.
THE void which caused THE universe implies Nothing => Something

Lemaître, as a Catholic priest, pretty much by definition could believe in miracles. I'm sure he would argue that a mathematical impossibility is not impossible for an omnipotent God.

Speaking of explaining how information works to you... Information is just a measure of surprise. If evidence surprises you, then it's informative. You learned something new.

And a "miracle" is simply when the most improbable evidence appears.

The evidence that you are wrong about almost everything.

To reject miracles a priori is simply dogma - it's unscientific. Anything's possible. Impossibility is just a provisional/falsifiable hypothesis.

I don't believe that, but I'm quite happy to sit on the fence and admit I can't rule it out.

But you just got off the fence Willus Ignoramus. You rulled "probably not". You rulled that it's MORE likely to be improbable than to be probable.

That's not the fence. That's OFF the fence. And I am incredibly surprised (that's how information works!)

The fence is where you assign equal probability to ALL competing hypothesis.
The moment you rank ONE above all others you've lost your fence.

Suspension of judgment...

[Will Bouwman]

Surely as a fence-sitter such as yourself it would make sense to weigh the evidence as being 50/50?

What split would cause you to commit? Is your balance so precarious that 49/51 would topple you?

You believe what you like. It is my view that among the various hypotheses for the cause or origin of the universe, the one thing that big bang theories have in common is that the universe started out very small, and is now very big. Not all of those theories insist that the universe started with x,y,z,t of 0,0,0,0.

THE universe? THE cause? Your grammar implies 1 universe with 1 cause.

Curse you, grammar fiend, you got me! Very well Skepdick, OUR universe, and yes, OUR universe may well be overdetermined; you know, lollipops and trucks.

You appear to be incredibly confused, Willus Ignoramus.

Literally a paragraph ago you were telling me that there is NO unified singularity. And now you are telling me about one singularity causing another.

It's the infinity associated with singularity that I was saying probably not to; the same thing you said is mathematically impossible. If I appear confused, it's because you are.

THE cause of THE universe implies Something => Something.
THE void which caused THE universe implies Nothing => Something

How many more times?

The current understanding of nature is Ex Nihilo.

Well no. That's your current understanding of the current understanding. Ex nihilo is one hypothesis, but there are many others.

Information is just a measure of surprise. If evidence surprises you, then it's informative. You learned something new.

It should not surprise you that there are different contexts for 'information', not all of which involve surprise.

And a "miracle" is simply when the most improbable evidence appears.

As simple as that, eh? Well, surprise! Some people mean something else by 'miracle'.

The evidence that you are wrong about almost everything.

To reject miracles a priori is simply dogma - it's unscientific. Anything's possible. Impossibility is just a provisional/falsifiable hypothesis.

I don't believe that, but I'm quite happy to sit on the fence and admit I can't rule it out.

D'ya see what you did there Skepdick? In one sentence you say "To reject miracles a priori is simply dogma" and the very next sentence is you quoting me admitting I can't rule out miracles.

But you just got off the fence Willus Ignoramus. You rulled "probably not". You rulled that it's MORE likely to be improbable than to be probable.

That's not the fence. That's OFF the fence.

The fence is where you assign equal probability to ALL competing hypothesis.
The moment you rank ONE above all others you've lost your fence.

Don't tell me how to sit on a fence, you fence sitter fascist!

Suspension of judgment...

Exactly what I'm doing.

[Skepdick]

Surely as a fence-sitter such as yourself it would make sense to weigh the evidence as being 50/50?

What split would cause you to commit? Is your balance so precarious that 49/51 would topple you?

It's just Mathematics, ignoramus. A split implies 50/50. X = Y.

Soon as you move OFF the split it amounts to choice. X > Y; OR X < Y.

You know how I know you aren't on the fence? Because I am on it and you aren't here...

Curse you, grammar fiend, you got me! Very well Skepdick, OUR universe, and yes, OUR universe may well be overdetermined; you know, lollipops and trucks.

Curse you, ignoramus.

OUR universe (singular)?
THE cause (singular) of OUR universe (singular).

Look! A miracle!

Just yesterday you said ALL theories were underdetermined. Now you are saying that OUR universe may be overdetermined.

It's the infinity associated with singularity that I was saying probably not to; the same thing you said is mathematically impossible. If I appear confused, it's because you are.

Willus ignoramus. Singularities are neither infinite nor finite. Those are just human anthropomorphisms about the unknown.

Singularities are representations of our ignorance. If you want to represent them you can use a dot "." and even that's bringing in a connotation.

Singularities denote a knowledge-vacuum. Ignorance.

THE cause of THE universe implies Something => Something.
THE void which caused THE universe implies Nothing => Something

How many more times?

Willus Ignoramus.

Do you not see a semantic difference between SOMETHING and NOTHING?
Do you not see the semantic difference between a universe caused by NOTHING; and an un-caused universe?

Those are different fucking theories!

Well no. That's your current understanding of the current understanding. Ex nihilo is one hypothesis, but there are many others

It's not one hypothesis. It's one CLASS of hypotheses. EX means FROM.

FROM Something
FROM Nothing

And then there's the NOT from anything class. The rejection of an origin for the universe altogether.

Do you seriously not understand the semantic differences between such things?

It should not surprise you that there are different contexts for 'information', not all of which involve surprise.

It should not surprise you (but it probably will) that every single context that deals with information is epistemic.

A surprising surprise and an unsurprising surprise are still information.

As simple as that, eh? Well, surprise! Some people mean something else by 'miracle'.

Yes, of course! Some people mean an a priori/not-even-wrong "IMPOSSIBLE". You seem to be one of those people.

D'ya see what you did there Skepdick? In one sentence you say "To reject miracles a priori is simply dogma" and the very next sentence is you quoting me admitting I can't rule out miracles.

And? What's your point?

Just a few days back you were preaching that IMPOSSIBLE means IMPOSSIBLE, and now you can't rule out miracles.

It sure seems you are hopping over your imagined fence between ontology and epistemology.

Don't tell me how to sit on a fence, you fence sitter fascist!

I am not telling you HOW to sit on it. I am telling you THAT you aren't sitting on it anymore.

If you are going to keep insisting that sitting on the fence is the same as NOT sitting on the fence.

CONTRADICTION.

Exactly what I'm doing.

No, you aren't. You have very much unsuspended your judgment on the (im)probability of a theory in relation to all others.

Evaluation (of evidence) is NOT suspension of judgment; because evaluation IS judgment.

evaluation
/ɪˌvaljʊˈeɪʃn/
noun
the making of a judgement about the amount, number, or value of something; assessment.

And so you necessarily believe SOMETHING rather than NOTHING about our universe.

Lets start with the classes of beliefs.

A: FROM something
B: FROM nothing
C: NOT from anything

[Will Bouwman]

You know how I know you aren't on the fence? Because I am on it and you aren't here...

Ah, you're that unbalanced that a 49/51 split will topple you from the fence.

Just yesterday you said ALL theories were underdetermined. Now you are saying that OUR universe may be overdetermined.

I was trying to explain, using an analogy a 5 year old could understand, that underdetermination has nothing to do with overdetermination. I'll try again:
Underdetermination: two or more theories can explain the same phenomenon equally well.
Overdetermination: a phenomenon is the result of two or more causes, any of which could explain the phenomenon by itself.

Willus ignoramus. Singularities are neither infinite nor finite.

Surprise!
"Put simply, singularities are places where the mathematics "misbehave," typically by generating infinitely large values. There are examples of mathematical singularities throughout physics: Typically, any time an equation uses 1/X, as X goes to zero, the value of the equation goes to infinity."
https://www.livescience.com/what-is-singularity

Those are different fucking theories!

I say, Skepdick, are you sure it's the atheists who are getting pissed off?

It should not surprise you (but it probably will) that every single context that deals with information is epistemic.

Well Skepdick, given that every single context is necessarily epistemic, it would be a great surprise if one wasn't.

A surprising surprise and an unsurprising surprise are still information.

An "unsurprising surprise"? What is this rum language you speak?

I am not telling you HOW to sit on it. I am telling you THAT you aren't sitting on it anymore.

And I'm telling you I don't care what you think

If you are going to keep insisting that sitting on the fence is the same as NOT sitting on the fence.

CONTRADICTION.

Lotta capitals creeping in, Skepdick. It's never a good sign.

[Skepdick]

You know how I know you aren't on the fence? Because I am on it and you aren't here...

Ah, you're that unbalanced that a 49/51 split will topple you from the fence.

No, I am that precise. 49/51 is a useless scale when you have an effectively infinite number of datapoints.

49.000...1/51.999..9 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...2/51.999..8 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...3/51.999..7 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...4/51.999..6 wouldn't topple me.
....
49.9/51.1 wouldn't topple me.

But 49/51 just breaks the camel's back.

But at the level of infinite precision it's really fucking simple.

Balance: X = Y
Imbalance: X > Y or Y > X


Whether it's 49/51; or (ω - 1) / (ω + 1); or (ω^ω - 1) / (ω^ω + 1)

I was trying to explain, using an analogy a 5 year old could understand, that underdetermination has nothing to do with overdetermination. I'll try again:
Underdetermination: two or more theories can explain the same phenomenon equally well.
Overdetermination: a phenomenon is the result of two or more causes, any of which could explain the phenomenon by itself.

OK, so let me explain it to you like you are 5.

What if The Truth is that the phenomenon you are trying to explain is unexplainable by theory?

Where on the Under-Over determined continuum does the above hypothesis fit?

For a fence-sitter you sure don't seem to have a fence.

Willus ignoramus. Singularities are neither infinite nor finite.

Surprise!

I am unsurprised by your surprise.

"Put simply, singularities are places where the mathematics "misbehave," typically by generating infinitely large values. There are examples of mathematical singularities throughout physics: Typically, any time an equation uses 1/X, as X goes to zero, the value of the equation goes to infinity."
https://www.livescience.com/what-is-singularity

"Infinitely large" VALUES or "infinitely small" VALUES sounds rather subjective, don't you think? In relation to what fence?

Those are different fucking theories!

I say, Skepdick, are you sure it's the atheists who are getting pissed off?

Why do you think my use of the word "fuck" expresses frustration? Is that how you use it?

Shame. I use it to express many different emotions. It's such an onomatopoeia.

Well Skepdick, given that every single context is necessarily epistemic, it would be a great surprise if one wasn't.

This change of heart surprises me. You said not all information is about surprise.

Did you mean ontological information (evidence) or epistemic information (judgments)?

An "unsurprising surprise"? What is this rum language you speak?

Your continuous surprise is unsurprising to me. Ignoramus.

It's a a certain indicator that you are learning something from me.

And I'm telling you I don't care what you think

I don't care that you don't care. Neither X>Y nor Y>X is the fence you claim to be sitting on.

The fence is at X = Y.

Law of identity!

Lotta capitals creeping in, Skepdick. It's never a good sign.

Critique of style instead of substance is always the sophist's last refuge.

[Will Bouwman]

I am that precise. 49/51 is a useless scale when you have sixtillions datapoints.

Balance/fence-sitting means: X = Y

Are you so precise you count "sixtillions datapoints" every time you make a decision?

Underdetermination: two or more theories can explain the same phenomenon equally well.
Overdetermination: a phenomenon is the result of two or more causes, any of which could explain the phenomenon by itself.

...Where on the Under-Over determined continuum does the above hypothesis fit?

Dear oh dear. Can't you tell from the above there is no continuum joining underdetermination and overdetermination?

Willus ignoramus. Singularities are neither infinite nor finite.

Surprise!

I am unsurprised by your surprise.

It would surprise me if you were so dim you actually thought I was the subject of that surprise. Tell me you're only acting that dumb, Skepdick!

"Put simply, singularities are places where the mathematics "misbehave," typically by generating infinitely large values. There are examples of mathematical singularities throughout physics: Typically, any time an equation uses 1/X, as X goes to zero, the value of the equation goes to infinity."
https://www.livescience.com/what-is-singularity

"Infinitely large" VALUES or "infinitely small" VALUES sounds rather subjective, don't you think?

Not those kind of values.
Oh-oh! More capitals, Skepdick.

Those are different fucking theories!

I say, Skepdick, are you sure it's the atheists who are getting pissed off?

Why do you think my use of the word "fuck" expresses frustration? Is that how you use it?

Yeah, sometimes.

Shame. I use it to express many different emotions. It's such an onomatopoeia.

Really? What do you think it sounds like?

Well Skepdick, given that every single context is necessarily epistemic, it would be a great surprise if one wasn't.

This change of heart surprises me. You said not all information is about surprise.

Duh! Not all is not the same as none.

Did you mean ontological information (evidence) or epistemic information (judgments)?

Skepdick, you are not nearly as good at this as you think; I'm sure you've heard of Dunning-Kruger. I'll repeat it for you:

...context is necessarily epistemic...

Maybe you really are that dumb.

An "unsurprising surprise"? What is this rum language you speak?

Your continuous surprise is unsurprising to me. Ignoramus.

It's a a certain indicator that you are learning something from me.

Skepdick, I salute you! An unsurprising surprise is indeed a surprise to me.

And I'm telling you I don't care what you think

I don't care that you don't care. Neither X>Y nor Y>X is the fence you claim to be sitting on.

The fence is at X = Y.

Skepdick, you are being a fence sitter fascist again.

Lotta capitals creeping in, Skepdick. It's never a good sign.

Critique of style instead of substance is always the sophist's last refuge.

Self-righteousness is always the pompous oaf's last refuge.

[Will Bouwman]

Ah, an edit. Skepdick, has it ever occurred to you to think before you dash off your nonsense?

49.000...1/51.999..9 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...2/51.999..8 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...3/51.999..7 wouldn't topple me.
49.000...4/51.999..6 wouldn't topple me.
....
49.9/51.1 wouldn't topple me.

But 49/51 just breaks the camel's back.

But at the level of infinite precision it's really fucking simple.

Really? You're that precise with your beliefs? This joke just keeps getting funnier!

[Skepdick]

I am that precise. 49/51 is a useless scale when you have sixtillions datapoints.

Balance/fence-sitting means: X = Y

Are you so precise you count "sixtillions datapoints" every time you make a decision?

Oh, so if you didn't do any counting then how did you get to the 49/51 number?

Are you using it metaphorically as way of representing your bias? It's very difficult to walk a fence with a bowling ball in one hand.

Dear oh dear. Can't you tell from the above there is no continuum joining underdetermination and overdetermination?

Dear, oh dear. Can't you tell that I constructed the continuum?

The continuum of sequential universes.

Any FROM hypothesis for ALL the universes is overdetermined.
<TRUE HYPOTHESIS GOES HERE>
Any FROM hypothesis for OUR universe is underdetermined.

It would surprise me if you were so dim you actually thought I was the subject of that surprise. Tell me you're only acting that dumb, Skepdick!

So you were lying about being surprised? That doesn't surprise me.

You keep contradicting yourself. What's one more?

Not those kind of values.
Oh-oh! More capitals, Skepdick.

What other kind is there, Ignoramus? All values are values because all values are valuable.

What fence are you sitting on from which you determine which values are "large" and which values are "small"?

Really? What do you think it sounds like?

Very similar to the way Billy Connolly thinks "fuck off" sounds like.

Duh! Not all is not the same as none.

How is that even possible, Willus Ignoramus?

If the inventor of the concept of "information" defined it as "the measure of surprise", what sort of information could you possible be talking about that isn't that?

Skepdick, you are not nearly as good at this as you think; I'm sure you've heard of Dunning-Kruger. I'll repeat it for you:

...context is necessarily epistemic...

Maybe you really are that dumb.

Willus Ignoramus. Let us suspend judgments on who is on the far left side of the Dunning-Kruger scale; otherwise it might surprise you very very much if it turns out it's actually you.

If ALL information is epistemic, and ALL information is "the measure of surprise", which is the SOME information which is NOT that?

Skepdick, I salute you! An unsurprising surprise is indeed a surprise to me.

Why? Is it coming in as news to you that you've encountered significantly more surprise in this dialogue than I have?

That seems like relevant evidence for who's on the left side of the Dunning-Kruger scale...

Skepdick, you are being a fence sitter fascist again.

Will, there is no fascism going on here. Stop lying about sitting on the fence. I am on the fence and I don't see you.

Self-righteousness is always the pompous oaf's last refuge.

ALWAYS? I would've said almost always.

Except when the self-righteous pompous oaf is telling The Truth.