Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


superpig

Member Since 26 May 2001
Offline Last Active Apr 04 2011 11:43 AM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: GDC 2011 Roll Call!

12 February 2011 - 04:57 AM

Alas, I can't go this year. Posted Image

In Topic: C# vs C++

04 February 2011 - 11:49 AM

Why C#? Because the following statement is false:

C++ is much stronger than C# due to the fact that it is a lower level language.


In Topic: Proof God doesn't exist?

26 January 2011 - 09:47 AM



Please show me where it says we can judge God. Making a choice != the right to judge God. Yes, we can choose to do whatever we want, follow God or not, but we are not in a position to judge him. We're just not qualified.

Why do we need to be qualified in order to judge something?

Well, we can judge all we want, but it's basically meaningless. Kind of like my 10 year old son judging whether or not the test results of a quantum physicist are correct. Posted Image


There are lots of mistakes that could be visible in the test results of a quantum physics experiment that your 10 year old son could spot. For example, say one of the sets of results measures the velocity of a particular particle. If one result amidst the column of numbers is recorded as 'banana,' I imagine your 10 year old could point that out as being at least questionable.


What makes a judgement 'meaningful,' and why does it matter whether a judgement is 'meaningful' or not?

In Topic: Proof God doesn't exist?

26 January 2011 - 09:08 AM

Please show me where it says we can judge God. Making a choice != the right to judge God. Yes, we can choose to do whatever we want, follow God or not, but we are not in a position to judge him. We're just not qualified.

Why do we need to be qualified in order to judge something?

In Topic: Proof God doesn't exist?

26 January 2011 - 03:10 AM



The way I understand it. Occam's Razor doesn't apply to Entities with no beginning (which God is sometimes presumed to be) because there is no associated set of events leading up to God's existence which would make it a more unlikely event than God's nonexistence. IE its not the same thing as an assertion stating that your cup broke because you dropped it on the floor vs your cup broke because of a CIA conspiracy with the Loch Ness Monster.

Now it CAN be applied to God intervening in any way but being omnipotent and omniscient and all that God may have found some sublimely simple ways to do anything.


Occam's Razor has nothing to do with causality.
(Exactly how you count assumptions isn't defined, but it doesn't need to be for the principle to be solid).


Are you sure? it seems Occam's Razor has everything to do with causality. Each event has a probability. Because of this a situation with a more events causing it (more complicated) is less likely than one with a less events causing it (less complicated). Thats the reason why it (sometimes) works.

What you're describing is a different principle. It may or may not be solid.


It is simply: You should prefer the explanation that makes the least assumptions.

Why? Because Occam's Razor came out of the sky and told you to?

Because it's more far-reaching (doesn't refer solely to events), makes fewer assumptions itself, and because everybody else who uses it in argument means it that way. See also Wikipedia, Google Definitions, HowStuffWorks...

PARTNERS