BBO Discussion Forums: what would happen if someone proved there is no Go - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

what would happen if someone proved there is no Go

#1 User is offline   sceptic 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,343
  • Joined: 2004-January-03

Posted 2006-August-01, 13:09

comments please
0

#2 User is offline   bid_em_up 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,351
  • Joined: 2006-March-21
  • Location:North Carolina

Posted 2006-August-01, 14:42

Then I guess we would all be stuck right where we are :)
Is the word "pass" not in your vocabulary?
So many experts, not enough X cards.
0

#3 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2006-August-01, 14:51

bid_em_up, on Aug 1 2006, 03:42 PM, said:

Then I guess we would all be stuck right where we are :)

heheheh
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#4 User is offline   pclayton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,151
  • Joined: 2003-June-11
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 2006-August-01, 14:52

And what is someone proved there was one?

In the meantime, we are stuck with our beliefs :)
"Phil" on BBO
0

#5 User is offline   paulg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,053
  • Joined: 2003-April-26
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scottish Borders

Posted 2006-August-02, 01:00

Is God Hiding or Not? by Scott Adams.
The Beer Card

I don't work for BBO and any advice is based on my BBO experience over the decades
0

#6 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,068
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2006-August-02, 01:29

The game of Go almost surely exists. If it were proven not to exist, I'm afraid people would be sceptical about bridge, too. But I suppose you meant "God".

The (non)-existence of God is not something that's supposed to be "proved".

There are certain things that defy scientific explanation, either because
- we are too ignorant (e.g. the origin of the first fatty cell membrane), or because
- it is inherently unknowable (e.g. what consciousness is), or because
- the scientific explanation given is estethically unacceptable to some (e.g. quantum physics), or because
- the scientific explanation given is too difficult to some (e.g. almost all of modern science), or because
- the scientific explanation given has undecided social implications in some peoples' opinions (e.g. evolutionary psychology)

Now you can solve this proble either by stating
- We default to Ocam's razor until something better has been suggested
- It's the domain of God
- Who cares, if we can't know it's a waste of time to discuss it

All three viewpoints are valid. DrTodd and Jimmy prefer the second one, Gerben and I prefer the first one. You might argue that one of the three is superior in some pragmatic sense but it's a waste of time to discuss which of the three is "true".

If you have some specific idea about how God manifests him(her?it?)self in the contemporary World, then that idea would probably have some factual consequences that could be tested, and some social consequences that could be argued to be good or bad. This wouldn't enable you to prove anything since believers could always argue that the assumed manifestation was not necesarily correct, while non-believers could allways argue that even if the state of the universe is in agreement with the existence of God, there are better alternative theories.

The (non)existence of God is a non-issue, at least in a scientific context.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

#7 User is offline   mgoetze 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,942
  • Joined: 2005-January-28
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cologne, Germany
  • Interests:Sleeping, Eating

Posted 2006-August-02, 05:11

I have played Go myself, so obviously there would be something wrong with the proof.

helene_t, on Aug 2 2006, 08:29 AM, said:

Now you can solve this proble either by stating
- We default to Ocam's razor until something better has been suggested
- It's the domain of God
- Who cares, if we can't know it's a waste of time to discuss it

All three viewpoints are valid. DrTodd and Jimmy prefer the second one, Gerben and I prefer the first one. You might argue that one of the three is superior in some pragmatic sense but it's a waste of time to discuss which of the three is "true".


Guess I'll have to speak up for viewpoint number three then. :) I will, however, argue that organized religion is bad for society... don't bother trying to get me to do it on such a large forum as this one, though. :)
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
    -- Bertrand Russell
0

#8 User is offline   joshs 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,082
  • Joined: 2006-January-23

Posted 2006-August-02, 09:51

If there was no Go, I would not collect $200, and I would probably end up bankrupt after paying my utility bills, and staying in my friend's hotels, and taking a ride on reading railroad..
0

#9 User is offline   joshs 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,082
  • Joined: 2006-January-23

Posted 2006-August-02, 09:52

cardsharp, on Aug 2 2006, 02:00 AM, said:

Is God Hiding or Not? by Scott Adams.

Having read Spinoza, I am certain that after creating the world out of a single monad, God had nothing left to do and went into hybernation.
0

#10 User is offline   Trumpace 

  • Hideous Rabbit
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,040
  • Joined: 2005-January-22
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2006-August-02, 09:56

It has already been proved by Homer Simpson.
0

#11 User is offline   DrTodd13 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,156
  • Joined: 2003-July-03
  • Location:Portland, Oregon

Posted 2006-August-02, 11:01

There are areas that we just don't currently understand and there are other areas where there is some reason to believe that it is impossible to know the answer to a question. It is weird but sometimes science can prove that we can never prove an answer to a question, one way or the other. While not proven, the provability of the existence or non-existence of God is probably impossible. In such cases where something is provably unprovable, I think it is acceptable to have a position based on faith. So, faith should not conflict with science.
0

#12 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,836
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2006-August-02, 14:43

I gather that a Christian organization recently conducted a long-term study of the efficiacy of prayer, in the hope that it would demonstrate a correlation between prayer and health. The study arranged for various groups to pray for the speedy recovery of named patients from major surgery.

It was hoped that this would result in statistically significant differences between the recovery of the non-prayed for control population and the prayed for groups. It was an extensive study.

Unfortunately, for those of superstitious inclinations, there was virtually no difference and, ironically, what difference there was manifested itself in a higher rate of post-operative complications for the 'prayed-for' group than for the control sample.

Similar objective debunking has been done with respect to most mystical interventions, such as the laying on of hands. However, true believers possess the common and all too human ability to rationalize away disproofs or, if rationalization is impossible, simply to ignore the contrary evidence.

That is not to say that disproof of the efficiacy of prayer or the false nature of claims of healing powers by preachers disproves the major tenets of religion or disproves the existence of some entity which could be called 'god'.

In any event, no amount of objective evidence will ever persuade the superstitious to give up the crutch of belief... religious bodies, including the Christian church(es) have shown remarkable ability to overcome disproof of some of their belief structure in the past, by rationalization or by recasting stories once held to be literally true to be only allegorical, etc. And many of the sects seem to inculcate the ability to actually ignore awkward evidence... hence they can continue to assert that the Bible is literally true even while apparently ignoring the multitude of internal contradictions found therein. And we haven't even touched upon such abysmal efforts to preserve the role of 'God' as by way of the so-called 'intelligent design' idiocy.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#13 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2006-August-02, 16:39

mikeh, on Aug 2 2006, 03:43 PM, said:

And we haven't even touched upon such abysmal efforts to preserve the role of 'God' as by way of the so-called 'intelligent design' idiocy.

just curious, have you read behe's 'darwin's black box'? if so, what's your take on his concept of an organism being irreducibly complex?
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#14 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,372
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2006-August-02, 16:49

luke warm, on Aug 3 2006, 01:39 AM, said:

mikeh, on Aug 2 2006, 03:43 PM, said:

And we haven't even touched upon such abysmal efforts to preserve the role of 'God' as by way of the so-called 'intelligent design' idiocy.

just curious, have you read behe's 'darwin's black box'? if so, what's your take on his concept of an organism being irreducibly complex?

I've read some stuff by Behe, as well as a number of articles that are sharply critical of his work. Personally, I'm much more convinced by his critics.

For example, Behe cites a number of examples of organelles or pathways that he claims are irreducibly complex. (Flagellum on bacterial, blood clotting, and the complement system in the immune system are some of his favorite examples) However, Behe's critics have been able to offer reasonable evolutionary pathways for each of these systems.

Behe tried to trott out the flagellum example during the recent Dover court case and got his butt handed to him. Indeed, a lot of that opinion was a very explicit rejection of Behe's theories...
Alderaan delenda est
0

#15 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,190
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2006-August-02, 17:29

Is this the right room for an argument? :P
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#16 User is offline   luke warm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,951
  • Joined: 2003-September-07
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Bridge, poker, politics

Posted 2006-August-02, 17:49

hrothgar, on Aug 2 2006, 05:49 PM, said:

luke warm, on Aug 3 2006, 01:39 AM, said:


just curious, have you read behe's 'darwin's black box'? if so, what's your take on his concept of an organism being irreducibly complex?

I've read some stuff by Behe, as well as a number of articles that are sharply critical of his work. Personally, I'm much more convinced by his critics.

we all are predisposed to give credence to the ones who espouse our own points of view

Quote

For example, Behe cites a number of examples of organelles or pathways that he claims are irreducibly complex.   (Flagellum on bacterial, blood clotting, and the complement system in the immune system are some of his favorite examples)  However, Behe's critics have been able to offer reasonable evolutionary pathways for each of these systems.

really? i was unaware of that... what do his critics say about the flagellum in a cell? iow, what do they say about the chance that it simply evolved?

Quote

Behe tried to trott out the flagellum example during the recent Dover court case and got his butt handed to him.  Indeed, a lot of that opinion was a very explicit rejection of Behe's theories...

i guess it depends a lot on the definitions used, and on whether one is speaking of science or the philosophy of science (as hawking does with string theory)... for example, the judge in the trial depended on a definition of science that contained the word 'falsifiable'... is darwinism falsifiable?
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)
0

#17 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,836
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2006-August-02, 17:56

luke warm, on Aug 2 2006, 05:39 PM, said:

mikeh, on Aug 2 2006, 03:43 PM, said:

And we haven't even touched upon such abysmal efforts to preserve the role of 'God' as by way of the so-called 'intelligent design' idiocy.

just curious, have you read behe's 'darwin's black box'? if so, what's your take on his concept of an organism being irreducibly complex?

I have not read his books, but I read a great many verbatim quotes from the trial judgment to which Richard refers and I have read several books by Richard Dawkins and many by Jay Stephen Gould, as well as other 'natural scientists' as they would once have been known. Their arguments, which these days include reliance upon genetic analysis as well as fossil remains, appear logical and convincing.

I have also read some other of the arguments put forward by creationists, including the argument that there is no evolutionary purpose for a partly formed eye or a rudimentary wing, etc. Elegant, plausible rebuttals of these arguments can be readily found in Dawkins... read Climbing Mount Improbability as an example.

It is truly sad that the US, which has based its climb to pre-eminence in the global economy on innovation, usually based on science, and which continues to attract the largest number of pure science thinkers in the world, fetters so many of its students by promoting such pseudo-babble as creationism or intelligent design. Even intelligent politicians such as McCain seem to feel that they have to pander to the irrational element of the Republican Party by asserting that there is a place for the teaching of what are essentially creation myths AS SCIENCE!

I almost understand the depth of the need to believe in a God... else we have to confront the reality of death without the fudge that it is only a passage to another existence. I can also almost understand why accepting that consciousness seems to be an emergent property arising out of what are essentially random (quantum) events in a complex structure is so threatening to people's sense of their own importance in the universe. Self-delusion may make some comfortable... the words of Pink Floyd's song.. comfortably numb.... come to mind... but refusing to accept reality is no way for the species to move forward into the future.

And, as for the probability that we may never be capable, as a species, of internally grasping the nature of 'reality' or the universe, that does not mean that God exists... it merely means that we, as a species, have evolved in circumstances in which our brains cannot hold the concept. A dog watching televison may (mine do) bark at images that appear on the screen, but no dog can write the script for the show it is watching, any more than a dog will grasp any of the mathematics underlying string theory. Now, I don't either, but I know that I could have done so 30 years ago (well, i may be self-delusional here, but certainly some of our species can do this and, as far as we know, no other can)

I think that acceptance of our actual significance (or lack thereof) is the biggest problem underlying the need for religion, but I confess I am attracted to simplistic answers when they resonate with my core beliefs :P
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#18 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,372
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2006-August-02, 18:03

luke warm, on Aug 3 2006, 02:49 AM, said:

really? i was unaware of that... what do his critics say about the flagellum in a cell? iow, what do they say about the chance that it simply evolved?

http://www.talkdesig...background.html
http://www.talkdesig.../flagellum.html

The first link contains some links to professional papers
Alderaan delenda est
0

#19 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2006-August-02, 18:37

I have absolutely no intention of revealing my own views on this matter. However, as one who loves the intellectual challenge of hypothesizing, I thought I'd share a thought experiment.

The concept of "God," or of a god or gods, often is reacted to by those who "believe" and those who are skeptics, by pre-determined definitions of those terms. "God" is deemed a mystical idea, defined by prior religious understandings, even if not shared by the person discussing his belief, views, and the like.

Some try to correct this problem with a concept like a "higher power" or some other strange incantation, to no avail.

I think through the concept by comparison of natural phenomena. First, I think of ants. Ants run around annoyingly doing their thing, until I crush them. But, despite no little cell phones in their little foot things, they seem somehow to "communicate" in a way that a tiny civilization forms, until I douse the anthill in poison.

Then, my cells. Each cell functions somehow as a completely symbiotic organism. However, the conglomeration of cells somehow communicate with each other such that my personality, frightening as it is, emerges. Great civilizations of cells, like my foot, have no clue this is going on. But, it does.

The strange thing about my conglomeration of cells is that individual cells all over can "die" and be replaced by new cells. In fact, I believe that just about every cell could die, if timed right, and I would go on if new cells replaced them. All of this, while my memory remains intact.

I am just a little spot on the planet. If I was large enough, with a big enough brain, I might be able to remember the experiences of each cell, or at least each conglomeration of cells (foot, hand, etc.) This would not make me "good" or "omnipotent," but it would be impressive, and quite natural.

What if, somehow, I could download my memories onto the internet? What is the internet, but a series of computers linked together? Some are linked by wireless connections.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#20 User is offline   helene_t 

  • The Abbess
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,068
  • Joined: 2004-April-22
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UK

Posted 2006-August-03, 02:21

Quote

In such cases where something is provably unprovable, I think it is acceptable to have a position based on faith. So, faith should not conflict with science.


I'm delighted that Todd (a Christian) and me (an atheist) can agree on this.

Maybe I'm not the right person to deem certain ideas "blasfemic", but I wonder if Jesus, Moses and the apostels, had they been alive today, would have any sympathy for fundamentalist science-bashing. I can immagine that when the Bible was written, there was no established science that deemed the miracles reported in the Bible impossible. The miracles were extraordinary, but not impossible. And the book of Genesis provided the most plausible explanation for the origin of the Universe and mankind, given the level of scientific understanding at that time. So nothing anti-scientific was written in the Bible. If it was written today, the miracles would be things like solutions to the Riemann Hypothesis, the nature of consciousness, life on other planets, and about new technology such as quantum computers, fusion power and many nice things that non-spiritual academics like me lack the fantasy to envision.

It's my impression that almost all Christian scholars, and also most Islamic etc. scholars, are quite reasonable in their relation to science. The previous Pope recognized Darwinism, as does Dalai Lama. Several bishops write friendly recomendations on the back of Dawkins books. Science-bashing often comes from people who not only lack academic training in science but also in theology. If I recall correctly, the funder of this ID thing is a lawyer.

I admire those bilogists who have the patience to answer those claims of bacterium organels that are "ireducibly complex". Similar claims were once made about eyesight, snake poison etc etc. Now those were easily refuted by biologists, but nature is full of impressing phenomena and you can always find something the origin of which hasn't yet been studied scientifically.
The world would be such a happy place, if only everyone played Acol :) --- TramTicket
0

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users