Question for atheists. . .

[Bradskii]

It's a repackaged infinite regress. You just refuse to admit it.

Cyclical, by definition, means that there is no infinite regress. What can I say. You're free to believe otherwise.

And what on earth is this?

'And you need to demystify physics. If they can't explain it at a freshman level, then they don't know what they're talking about.'

Is that another way of saying 'If I can't understand it then it must be wrong'.

Sheesh. The chutzpa is off the scale...

 

[Paulomycin]

Cyclical, by definition, means that there is no infinite regress. What can I say. You're free to believe otherwise.

It's an infinite regress of cyclical loops, and you know it.

Is that another way of saying 'If I can't understand it then it must be wrong'.

No-no. I'm not saying that at all. It's not about you personally--though I am saying that you are putting them on a pedestal. No matter how advanced the science is, it should never be so esoteric that no one else outside the field is capable of understanding it. It was Feynman (as well as others before him) who said that if you can't explain it at a freshman level, then you don't really understand it yourself. <-- That's directed at all scientists. Some are simply more capable of communicating than others.

 

[Bradskii]

It's an infinite regress of cyclical loops, and you know it.



No-no. I'm not saying that at all. It's not about you personally--though I am saying that you are putting them on a pedestal. No matter how advanced the science is, it should never be so esoteric that no one else outside the field is capable of understanding it. It was Feynman (as well as others before him) who said that if you can't explain it at a freshman level, then you don't really understand it yourself. <-- That's directed at all scientists. Some are simply more capable of communicating than others.

A cyle doesn't regress. But have it your way.

And what did Feynman say? Something about freshman levels? I know he said this:
'Hell, if I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel prize.'

And on nature itself:
' I can only tell you what it looks like, and I cannot make it innocent. ...I'm not going to simplify it...'

So there's some homework for you. Quote me the quote. I'll be pleased to find out something new about him (you do realise who my avatar is?).

 

[Paulomycin]

A cyle doesn't regress. But have it your way.

If it were anything else, it would literally be circular reasoning, which is much worse.

And what did Feynman say? Something about freshman levels? I know he said this:
'Hell, if I could explain it to the average person, it wouldn't have been worth the Nobel prize.'

Nobody's won any Nobel Prizes from hypotheticals.

So there's some homework for you. Quote me the quote. I'll be pleased to find out something new about him (you do realise who my avatar is?).

Please don't patronize me. That's why I brought it up to begin with. I try to build a bridge, and you immediately try to burn it down.

David L. Goodstein, in his book Feynman’s Lost Lecture:​

Feynman was a truly great teacher. He prided himself on being able to devise ways to explain even the most profound ideas to beginning students. Once, I said to him, “Dick, explain to me, so that I can understand it, why spin one-half particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics.” Sizing up his audience perfectly, Feynman said, “I’ll prepare a freshman lecture on it.” But he came back a few days later to say, “I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t reduce it to the freshman level. That means we don’t really understand it.”​

 

[Bradskii]

Feynman was a truly great teacher. He prided himself on being able to devise ways to explain even the most profound ideas to beginning students. Once, I said to him, “Dick, explain to me, so that I can understand it, why spin one-half particles obey Fermi-Dirac statistics.” Sizing up his audience perfectly, Feynman said, “I’ll prepare a freshman lecture on it.” But he came back a few days later to say, “I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t reduce it to the freshman level. That means we don’t really understand it.”​

That's an admission by Feynman that it wasn't understood. Not, as you said, an indication that all complex physics can be reduced to freshman levels. That's most definitely not true. As per his direct quote above.

But I'll acknowledge that one of his great strengths was as a teacher with an ability to make complex ideas more readily understood. The details? Well, as he said, if we could all understand them we'd all be up for a Nobel.

 

[Paulomycin]

That's an admission by Feynman that it wasn't understood. Not, as you said, an indication that all complex physics can be reduced to freshman levels. That's most definitely not true. As per his direct quote above.

Don't strain yourself with that reach. What you're doing is textbook eisegesis.

 

[HitchSlap]

Don't strain yourself with that reach. What you're doing is textbook eisegesis.

The irony with your statement cracks me up. Your ego is so fragile. lol

 

[Paulomycin]

The irony with your statement cracks me up. Your ego is so fragile. lol

Imaginary "irony" that you can't explain, but hope everyone will just believe regardless.

 

[HitchSlap]

Imaginary "irony" that you can't explain, but hope everyone will just believe regardless.

I'll leave believing in imaginary things to you, chief.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'll leave believing in imaginary things to you, chief.

^ Still stalling on that alleged "irony."

 

[HitchSlap]

^ Still stalling on that alleged "irony."

I'll let you figure it out.*



*show your work here

 

[Paulomycin]

I'll let you figure it out.*



*show your work here

Your claim. You carry burden of proof, remember?

 

[HitchSlap]

Your claim. You carry burden of proof, remember?

I'll help you out, but only this once; google "irony."

P.S. make you you spell it correctly. I R O N Y

Good luck!

 

[Paulomycin]

I'll help you out, but only this once; google "irony."

P.S. make you you spell it correctly. I R O N Y

Good luck!

I spelled it correctly. Why continue to stall on that empty claim you made?

 

[Lion IRC]

It's an infinite regress of cyclical loops, and you know it.

Yep.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Here's the test.
Is it past-eternal?
Is it perpetual motion?
Is it posited as a brute fact?

...then its no different than 'turtles all the way down'

 

[HitchSlap]

Yep.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Here's the test.
Is it past-eternal?
Is it perpetual motion?
Is it posited as a brute fact?

...then its no different than 'turtles all the way down'

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

 

[Lion IRC]

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I really have no idea how this comment adds anything to the discussion.
Can you explain to me how it helps irenic discussion for you to throw shade.

If you were to say you don't understand what I'm talking about, that would be fair comment. That would invite further discourse.

But you haven't even justified your claim that I have "no idea" what I'm talking about.

You didn't even bother to engage with my remarks or attempt to deconstruct them. That, at least, would demonstrate how it is you feel justified in making that assertion.

 

[Lion IRC]

Cyclical, by definition, means that there is no infinite regress.

No it doesn't definitively mean that.

You can version it any way you wish. If you want to propose a cycle which gradually slows down and stops, or one which infinitely accelerates, or one which had a beginning but no end...thats fine. We can work with any version of 'cycles' you propose.

But please clarify whether you assert that your cycles are uncaused and past-eternal. Is so, I would call that an infinite regression of cycles.

 

[HitchSlap]

I really have no idea how this comment adds anything to the discussion.
Can you explain to me how it helps irenic discussion for you to throw shade.

If you were to say you don't understand what I'm talking about, that would be fair comment. That would invite further discourse.

But you haven't even justified your claim that I have "no idea" what I'm talking about.

You didn't even bother to engage with my remarks or attempt to deconstruct them. That, at least, would demonstrate how it is you feel justified in making that assertion.

Based on every post of yours I have read, you're afraid of honest discourse. Nothing but baseless assertions and projection from you and your pal. Posters like you come and go, and are soon forgotten.

 

[Lion IRC]

Im sorry you feel that way. Bye.