A conversation between an atheist and a Christian who discuss homosexuality and neon signs.
I grew up in a religious family. As a child, my mother dragged me to faith healers who showed up once a month in Albuquerque and tried to “cure” my deafness. The faith healers themselves, while varied in the way they delivered their healing sessions, almost always shared the same routine. They would prop me up on stage in front of the church, and begin yelling something to the effect that I had somehow been wronged. By whom exactly was never answered, though I once asked a pastor, “If God made me deaf, why do we need faith healers to fix what God has done? That doesn’t make sense.” (My pastor immediately started praying, though I never got an answer).…
Article comments
226 - Les Slater
Gonzo,
The point is that you don't see the point.
Somewhere in this thread I mention that I have been very influenced by Shannon and Weaver's 'Mathematical Theory of Communication", written in 1948. I particularly remember Weaver's comment on redundancy. He pointed out that the English language is 50% redundant, you could randomly remove 50% of the characters and it would still be highly readable. He also pointed out that in any purposeful communication that the channel contained less than the actual message. e.g., a channel might be a single bit transmitted. The bit would only be a one or zero. The actual message would be greater. A zero could represent 'by land' and a one 'by sea'.
Weaver pointed out that this is fundamental for all channels, including, non electronic, personal communications. The actual transmission of a message could never totally be through the channel itself, that there is a necessary commonality in understanding how a message will be coded at the transmitting end, and how it will be decoded at the receiving end. The relationship between the coding and decoding can never be arbitrary. To the degree the coding mechanism and decoding mechanism are not fully in sync with each other gives rise to distortion.
Les
227 - gonzo marx
Shannon and Weaver's work is given as a postulate, no argument form me on that one...
still...what's your Point?
Excelsior?
228 - troll
welcome to the distorted inexact world of non formal systems and every day life - and good luck to you
get on with it - ?
229 - Les Slater
Gonzo,
The point is that my coding mechanism and your decoding mechanism are not in sync. So what we are going through, as is known communications parlance, in the training mode, and have not hand-shaked an agreement.
We are not on the same page. I keep pointing to misunderstandings and they are persistently ignored. We can’t move on without further distortion.
Les
230 - gonzo marx
Les - i'm stating that i comprehend your assertions and that with the stated small caveats...i'm following, awaiting you to further your Points
do i get everything you might be trying to communicate? probably not...i've been clear in my concerns and stated they are minor...only raised in case of future conflicts down the proverbial Path (so i can point back to them and show why i raised said objections..)
part of it is in dealing with your parable/analogy rather than straight talk
when using Metaphor, a level of ambiguity and interpretation is presumptive...such tools are great for explaining or expanding on something, but do poorly in setting out baseline axioms due to the inherent inaccuracy of the model under consideration
say it straight up, and we can take it from there, fair enough?
Excelsior?
231 - Les Slater
"i've been clear in my concerns and stated they are minor"
I think they are fundamental. I have tried to address all of your caveats in my 224. Which ones haven't I addressed?
Both you and duane point to losses. I wholeheartedly acknowledge the losses, and they are not minor. I just say they make no difference, they all heat the room. In this case that is our desired product. We get exactly what we pay for, no more, no less.
232 - gonzo marx
/sigh
ok, what comes out is less than or equal to what you put in ..a given and acceptable axiom
still don't see where you are going, and am rapidly losing the ability to care
please state your case and we can take it from there
Excelsior?
233 - Les Slater
What's the point? I've said this before but will try to make it more explicit.
I have said that the cost of the cooling function is absolutely free as far as the electric bill is concerned, but only if the 'waste' is useful.
If we decide to heat our room with resistance heating, which is faily common, the incremental cost of cooling the inside of a refrigerator is absolutely ZERO.
234 - gonzo marx
and i say it still takes electricity
heat is a waste byproduct of the refridgeration process
and NOTHING is "free", you still pay for every erg of electricity coming into the place...the Energy used for cooling ALWAYS costs and is NOT offset by the heat produced
set your example in July and you pay extra to cool the heat from the icebox with the air conditioner, the savings on the heat bill are minor...especially if your heat is not normally produced by electricity
now, you said you were going to show something violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics...so far what we have are semantic argumentation attempting to say that cooling your food via appliance is "free"...which i refute
but i'm willing to go along and see where your Analogy takes us, just fucking lay it out...please!
Excelsior?
235 - Les Slater
I never said it did not take electricity and somewhere many comments ago I said that it doesn't work in the summer. The thermodynamics of it though, are true whether or not you find the heat useful. That is what my warning at the begining of this discussion was referring to when I talked about morality and value judgements clouding our ability to think of this in scientific terms.
Your 234 pretty much says that this whole thing is impractical, that there are better ways to heat a room than resistance heating and the frig wouldn't make that much difference anyway.
I never said that was proposing a practical answer to the heating problem in winter.
What I think I successfully did was to demonstrate, that under controlled circumstances, using the efficiency loss of the frig to supplement the resistance heater's heat output, without incurring any further loss by cooling the inside of the frig.
This does not violate the second law but to realize that the only energy that one could find , not violating the first law, for the cooling function was the energy in the air inside the refrig. In a first law sense, it removed itself. All other energies were TOTALLY accounted for.
It made me think. The second law was my next target.
236 - gonzo marx
the energy transfer from the cooling coils to the air inside the appliance, that's the "work" being done, with a byproduct of heat from the cooling coils and electronics
as for any "value judgment"..that is a function of design principle...if you build something to cool, and you get heat as a byproduct...that's considered "waste" by definition, meaning it does nothing to further the intended work
now, where is this going?
Excelsior?
237 - Les Slater
"meaning it does nothing to further the intended work"
Are you a believer of 'Intelligent Design' as far as thermodynamics is concerned?
Do you believe thermodynamics follows the dictates of the designer? God or engineer? Your qualification here is NOTHING but a value judgement.
238 - gonzo marx
Les...you are bordering on the silly
the Designer in this case is the engineer who created that appliance..no more, no less
stop fucking around and attempting to skew what has been typed and try just typing out what it is you are trying to say...the Record is right here for anyone to read
the "value judgment" is for the engineer only, he was designing a device to keep food cool for storage, anything outside of said function is waste, which a good engineer keeps to a minimum...hence no jet engine on your alarm clock
Excelsior?
239 - Les Slater
Let's take a break and talk about Tammy Fae. She has just passed.
240 - gonzo marx
objection, your Honor!
counsel is trying to distract from the subject with a non-sequitor
Excelsior?
241 - Les Slater
Suggestion withdrawn.
242 - Les Slater
And what if I was in a small cold room with no other appliance than a frig? Would you expect me to endure the cold in deference to the intent of the engineer? Now who’s being silly? The frig is a useful heater. If gonzo isn’t looking I might even set the internal temp thermostat to max cold. Me being an engineer knows that will make the frig put out more heat.
This intent thing is just nonsense as far as the discussion at hand is concerned.
243 - gonzo marx
the more you type, the more i am forced to conclude that the discussion is pointless, fruitless and sheer frustration
enjoy your day
Excelsior?
244 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
This conversation between Les and Gonzo has been a pleasure to read and watch, even though I didn't understand half of it (failed physics - couldn't get past professor Mukerjee's South Asian accent and the absence of air conditioning in a summer college course).
It is illustrative of what happens when two well intentioned people cannot agree on fundamentals in a discussion and argue past each other. For this reason alone, it was worth slogging through the metaphors involved.
Both of you now have an idea of the frustration of Talmudic study. Sages argue with each other, rarely agreeing on the fundamentals at issue, and there is nearly never a satisfactory resolution - so the students are left to follow the sage of their choice...
245 - gonzo marx
well Ruvy...i say fuck following any sage
read the Material for yourself, find out where said material comes from, and make up your own Mind
anything less is sheeple behavior, imo
since your example are all about the wrangling about the writings of Men, you get subjective interpretations, hence arguments
this one is strange since we are dealing with physics...pretty Objective, and #146 shows the formula involved...also clearly objective
under discussion is some strange analogy/metaphor which has gone no where in actually conveying any meaningful content to the overall discussion so far
there's the recap...
Excelsior?
246 - Les Slater
Ruvy,
I'm not frustrated, just disappointed. I had lots of fun trying to get my ideas straight. I am satisfied that I succeeded in that.
I am very pleased that you found the discussion to have been a pleasure to read and watch. My discussion was never aimed at physics majors. I kept it at the simplest level that I possibly could and still maintain rigor. I suspect you understand more than you admit.
Les
247 - Les Slater
Also, I feel vindicated that Gonzo ended with a rousing defense of subjectivity.
248 - gonzo marx
what?
Les, just how deluded are you? are was that sarcasm?
i did not defend subjectivity merely because i pointed it out
but, what the fuck ever...when you want to speak plainly about a topic, i'll read it..no offense, but imo you just ain't cutting it with esoterica OR physics
one Question...are you an engineer or a HS drop out? if both, how did you manage that one?
Excelsior?
249 - Paotie
Les/Gonzo ..
I've enjoyed this conversation as well.
Les: what do you propose happens to the energy that sustains a human being after they die? Your analogy seems to suggest that energy has to be displaced when a person dies. Religious people tend to think this "energy" is really a soul, and persons are then subjected to judgement of the souls. As an atheist, I wonder if the energy that sustains my life will be transferred after I die, although I'm inclined to think the energy sustaining me today will be converted to decomposition. If I am cremated, my body will transfer the energy towards heat.
I might be wrong and ask for correction. I think I understand your fridgerator analogy in the sense of energy displacement. Of course, I could be wrong, too.
Regardless, I've genuinely enjoyed your analogies. In fact, I have enjoyed the conversation between you and Gonzo and hope to see more of the same in the future.
:o)
Paotie
250 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Gonzo,
You write,
i say fuck following any sage... read the Material for yourself, find out where said material comes from, and make up your own Mind...
anything less is sheeple behavior, imo
I understand and sympathize - but the source in the Torah itself, and the discussions are about law. The sages speak as judges, but without the authority to enforce their decisions - hence the lack of resolution. For this reason, one reads all the arguments. It allows you to get at all the permutations of the law that theses sages discovered.
All this sounds pretty impractical - until you are faced with a decision to make as a judge (a rabbi) and you need something to give you guidance and some authority.
Just a sample: a woman comes to you and her belly is a little round. She tells you that "the visitor" has not visited for two months. Obviously she is pregnant. Having this baby would reduce this family from poverty to penury; giving up the baby to another Jewish family is just not an option - the nearest family lives 200 kilometers away, a 5 day journey; in the eyes of this community, giving up the child to a non-Jew to raise would violate the agreement you made with the local prince granting you residence: Jews are not to be a burden on the community. What do you say to the young woman? The Torah, the original text, does not give clear guidance on abortion. But the sages, arguing over the issue, do generate ideas as to what to do.
That is the value of the Talmud, Gonzo. They generate ideas so that a judge following in their footsteps can use to come up with a solution for the young women of the age. And because the young woman sees you struggling over the texts and scratching your beard, she can have some confidence in that you have wrestled with the issue - her issue.
In the end, your authority as a judge (rabbi) rests on the confidence of those coming to you for judgments.
That is the recap...
251 - Les Slater
"one Question...are you an engineer or a HS drop out? if both, how did you manage that one?"
It's a long story. I did not have enough credits to graduate with my class in 1961. I joined the Air Force and spent nearly four years there. During the time in electronis training at Keesler AF Base in '62. I voluntarily doubled my classroom work load. I went to class 12 hours a day. I studied computers in addition to my assigned 'heavy ground radio maintainence'. I aced all courses and sections thereof. I was offered an instructor assignment but refused and requested to be assigned outside of training.
My first assignment was to Eilson AF Base in Fairbanks Alaaska. I was assigned to an HF receiver site that was closed the day I got there. I normally could have been reassigned to the transmitter site but that closed the same day. The communications group I was assigned to also maintained ground and airborne radar and navigational aids. I trained in these field.
I was there for 14 months. I asked fto be reassigned before 18 month tour was over. I was then assigned to an empty building in Cross City FL. It was supposed to be a crypto communications center. I studied cryptographic technology and got top Secret Crypto clearance and was issued .45 cal auto side arm. Nothing ever came of that building while I was there. They finally got tired of me and sent me to McDill AF Base in Tampa, FL. I was finally assigned to work in original MOS. I promptly got into motorcycle head on with truck and was totally out of action as far as the Air Force was concerned. They kept me in aabout another year until my four years were up.
I took some college courses through correspondence and at Tampa University. I got my high school GED and one year college GED. I applied to Tampa U. They granted me an invitation to start as a sophmore. I never took them up on it.
More later.
252 - gonzo marx
Les - you got yer GED, nuff said
Ruvy - ah we hit the conundrum...who wrote the original?
i say it was the hands of Men, and while there is much Wisdom there..it is Man's wisdom
other interpretations, some of which you share, claim Inspiration did guide those hands...
again, i Ask...from where? and see only the words of Men
so while i easily grant that Wisdom and precedence can indeed be found in writings...i do NOT see anything more than said Wisdom of Men...and thus remain a Skeptic in authoritarian pronouncements from ANY text
Excelsior?
253 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Ruvy - ah we hit the conundrum...who wrote the original?
i say it was the hands of Men, and while there is much Wisdom there..it is Man's wisdom
other interpretations, some of which you share, claim Inspiration did guide those hands...
again, i Ask...from where? and see only the words of Men
We've done this dance before, Gonzo. You make your claim; I make mine.
If we accept your claim, then the millennium old proofs of the 15 billion year age of the universe get tossed out with the rest, my boy - along with the near perfectly accurate timing for the lunation of the moon - coming from a people who didn't calculate that lunation from the watching the moon, but from reading the Torah and following the Clues left therein...
I seriously do recommend to you the book Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He explains these things far better than I, with my puerile knowledge of either math or Jewish law... And being that you are a mathematician by training, you should have little trouble following the logic - logic explicated by a fellow who, among other things, was involved in the weapons testing in the early '60's - his first story in the book, and his explanation of how his impression of deer changed.
However, what I wrote you concerning the Torah, and the Talmud, is the same application that any person would make to the secular law and its development, and why judges look up laws in thick tomes. Note that in my example, I put the word "judge" before the word "rabbi." This was not accidental.
254 - gonzo marx
just for your lunar calendar bit, since i think it is endemic to the points at hand
i'll easily grant that some Men derived a solid lunar calendar from reading scripture
but here's the thing, why is it so difficult to understand that some Men who HAD been making astronomic observations were the ones who put those "clues" in there in the first place?
nothing supernatural to be found, more's the pity
Excelsior?
255 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Gonzo, in the days before you sent us "you tubes" with hard rock tunes carrying philosophy, you used to send links with some real hard reading. And when you sent them my way, I looked - I respect your intelligence, even if I do not necessarily agree with you.
So, to humopr a fellow seeker, check out this site and read a couple of the essays posted there...
256 - duane
Ruvy, this business about the 15 billion year old universe is fascinating. You said that the proof of this was known some 1000 years ago (or more?). As far as you know, did this proven fact ever enter into discussions of the age of creation, you know, the Ussher stuff? Why did so many people adopt the picture of the 6000 year old universe? Is that just a Christian thing?
Also, I was wondering the heat death of the universe was predicted in the ancient texts, i.e., is the lifetime of the universe mentioned? That would involve the 2nd Law, which, as far as I can see, remains unscathed by the preceding discussions.
257 - gonzo marx
as far as i know, Usher used biblical geneologies tied to known historic points to calculate the 6000 years as a literal timetable presented by the combination of Old and New Testaments as an accepted canon
what Ruvy is talking about is a bit different, best to let him explain it
:::munches popcorn:::
Excelsior?
258 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
There is a comment stuck in the maws of the anti-apam device that requests of Gonzo that he humor me by checking out Dr. Gerald Schroeder's website. This is his research.
According to Maimonides, the story of Creation is a hidden story, with the text as written largely for children and those who can get their moral lessons no other way. The creation itself is described by a rabbi named Nahmanides, whose description jives with the Big Bang theory developed in the last third of the last (Christian) century.
The six thousand year business is largely a Christian theory, though some Jews are just as literal (and in my eyes, just as foolish) in the way they read the Torah.
I do not know about the heat death theory or whether it may be in the Zohar or not.
259 - duane
Hi, gonzo. Yeah, I knew about the adding up all the begets, but I have no idea about the other deal.
By the way, Ruvy, I'm back from the future. No flowers. Interestingly, however, there was a sheet of folded up newspaper in my pocket, which I only discovered after my arrival back here in 2007, perhaps placed there by dear Weena. The headline said
WORLD TO END ON MARCH 15, 808,422!
Some things never change.
260 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Well, Duane, now that you are officially back from the world of the Morlocks, I now have two comments in the maw of the anti-spam device, One explains to a degree the ideas of the fifteen billion years.
Let's try this again. Looking forward from creation there are six "days." That is what you read in the Torah, which is G-d's perspective. Looking backwards to the Big Bang, our perspective, there are 15 billion years, which can be roughly divided into six "days" of lengths that double in size as you go backwards in time.
That is Gerald Schroeder's theory. But the 15 billion years number is at least 1,000 years old.
The numbers from Ussher are nice - and that is about all... They are worthless.
I should point out that some sects of Jews reject evolution and refuse to admit to geologic evidence. With time they'll get with the program - or have the program shoved down their throats...
As to the heat death theory, this is something I do not know about at all. What is on the "radar" of most Jews who pay attention to these things is redemption and the coming of the messiah, and what hell may break loose beforehand, and what the world will look like immediately afterwards. Heat death looks into the far future.
But I can always ask.
261 - duane
Thanks, Ruvy, but let me re-ask my questions more clearly. If you don't know the answer, no problem.
Did the determination of the 15-billion-year-old universe get lost at some point after it was stated? Was this recently re-discovered? If not -- if people of faith have always known about this -- how did Ussher and his contemporaries (not to mention people of our era) so easily dismiss it?
6,000 is the number that many Christians like. Cosmologists holler, "13.6 billion!" and those of faith see a conflict between their beliefs and the oh-so-misguided flailing of scientists. If the number was 15 billion, those of faith would simply say to the struggling cosmologists, "Of course!" and see no conflict, at least in that arena.
As far as having science shoved downs people's throats, when does that ever happen? I know you're exaggerating to make a point, but let's face it, people believe what they want to believe. When confronted with evidence or argument that contradicts their beliefs, they have at their disposal many rebuttals that adequately serve their purpose. There is no Room 101 for people who don't like the numbers 4.6 billion and 13.6 billion. 'Twas always thus, and ever 'twill be.
262 - Les Slater
Any idea why we have seven days in a week?
263 - Les Slater
Paotie,
I haven't forgotten your question. I'm just pondering it.
I'm glad you enjoyed Gonzo and me having a little fun.
I liked your original post. I'll never be able to pass another flashing Jesus sign without thinking of open trenchcoats.
Les
264 - Les Slater
BTW, my all time favorite flash was in the Pink Flamingos movie.