How do you plan to measure complexity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“Gorgias said:
rossum said:
So… given that the “orders of slaughter” are meant as a means to defend His people from other nations, then “pre-emptive strikes” are evil? Would the subsequent necessary self-defense be evil then, too?
Click to expand...
Orders to undertake a pre-emptive strike? Given by an omnipotent God? Seriously?

This is a guy who is meant to have created very existence itself and He wants some minions to slaughter women and children ‘to protect His people’.

Nope. You’ve lost me. Sorry. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gorgias said:
Because I can use empirical evidence (traffic cams, dash cams, eyewitness evidence) to prove that it happened because someone ran a red light, or was speeding, or didn’t react to the environment around him. Easy peasy.
Click to expand...
Except that none of those disprove the claim that it was due to the inattention of the guardian angels. The enumeration of the physical events does not say anything about the underlying causative principles, which provide the “explanation” for the event.
Gorgias said:
Show me where the Church says that we must take that description literally, and you have a chance of making a case. (Hint: the Church doesn’t require us to take it literally. But, as a Catholic, you already know that… right?)
Click to expand...
Of course I know that. Since it this particular case the church is silent, we are free to understand it according to our best information. Moreover, it was YOU, who asserted that the expression “let there be light” provides an explanation for the world. Now you wish to change this phrase to an allegory - and no allegory can provide an explanation for a physical event. Just getting deeper into your hole?
Gorgias said:
Observe the context.
Click to expand...
I am not interested in some nebulous “context”. If Jesus wanted to qualify the promise, he could have done it, so that there would be no chance of misunderstanding. The word “whatever” describes an unqualified promise. If you wish to second guess Jesus’ words, that is your problem, not mine. I am happy to accept Jesus’ words at their face value. And I am also glad to point out that you have no argument in this case either, just like in the other cases. As they say in Texas: “All hat and no cattle”. 🙂
Gorgias said:
Moreover, there’s a particular (and easily overlooked) caveat: they have to ask it in Jesus’ name! Now, as I pointed out to @rossum, are you really saying that Jesus meant that the prayer “Jesus, in your name, please kill such-and-such, even though he’s innocent” would gain His approval? If so, then your literalistic interpretations have reached their zenith. It can’t possibly mean that Jesus is promising to do evil, so it can’t mean what you say it means.
Click to expand...
Of course it can! If Jesus wishes to exterminate a group of people, then this act is not “evil”. When God drowned his whole creation in the deluge, it was not evil. If we commit a genocide, that is evil, if God does it, it is not evil… it is the expression of his love toward the drowned ones.
 
Sophia said:
The ancient Greeks had no idea about the intricacies of calculus (of limits of series)
Click to expand...
In about 250 BC Archimedes approximated pi by considering polygons inscribed and circumscribed about a circle.
 
Dan123 said:
Seriously.

“I know a murderer when I see one”
“I know a child molester when I see one”
“I know a terrorist when I see one”
Click to expand...
That is still irrelevant in the judicial process. There is the need for actual evidence - whatever the judge “believes” is of no relevance. After all the “innocent until PROVEN guilty” is still the cornerstone of the American jurisprudence.
 
I’m aware, I was agreeing with you. I imagine a lot more people would see how dangerous that line of reasoning is.
 
o_mlly said:
Since one of the (name removed by moderator)uts is unreal (“c”), the outputs are also unreal. Remember, (PSR), “you cannot give what you do not have.” Mandelbrot set is neither simple nor complicated, rather it is unreal (but interesting).
Click to expand...
I wonder what you mean by the word “real and unreal” in this context. The two words: “real” and “imaginary” are the two worst expressions ever invented in mathematics. Right next to the “rational” and “irrational” numbers.
 
Gorgias said:
I would respond that your assertion is based on a misinterpretation of the passage. What has been tested is your interpretation of the passage. The interpretation failed.
Click to expand...
Is there any passage in the bible that wouldn’t hold up to that test?

Is there any passage in any holy book that wouldn’t?

Is there a single passage in the Quran you can cite as being demonstrably false and not simply a misinterpretation?

If not does that mean the Quran is perfect?

If the Quran is perfect why do you doubt it’s the inspired word of God?
 
Solipsism would suggest at a certain level that’s the only thing you can know with certainty.
 
Dan123 said:
I’m aware, I was agreeing with you. I imagine a lot more people would see how dangerous that line of reasoning is.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I wish you would have used a smiley 😉 to indicate that you did not mean it literally.
 
AlNg said:
In about 250 BC Archimedes approximated pi by considering polygons inscribed and circumscribed about a circle.
Click to expand...
Yes, he did. But the problem of having infinitely many numbers and arriving at a finite sum was still incomprehensible to those people. The paradox of Zeno is not a paradox any more. It was a paradox back then. Whether it was expressed as an arrow approaching a wall (but never reaching it), or Achilles chasing the turtle (and never catching up with it) the problem for those people was that they realized that the arrow will hit the wall, and Achilles will reach the turtle, but for them it was a “paradox”. It was Newton and Leibniz who developed calculus.
 
Sophia said:
If something wishes to masquerade as science, then it must conform to the requirements of science. A clear, unambiguous definition (“what is complexity?”) and a method to distinguish between “simple” and “complex” entities. No science will accept something in the “illative sense”
Click to expand...
Not true because science studies viruses and there is no clear and unambiguous definition of living being which will determine whether a virus is living or not.
 
Gorgias said:
So… given that the “orders of slaughter” are meant as a means to defend His people from other nations, then “pre-emptive strikes” are evil? Would the subsequent necessary self-defense be evil then, too?
Click to expand...
When the Argentine Junta wanted to execute a pregnant anti-Junta woman, they held her in prison hospital until she had given birth and then executed her. The baby was handed over to a pro-Junta couple to raise.

Are you telling me that your omnipotent God has less mercy for the unborn that the Argentine Generals, and could not have thought of the same idea as them?

Really, what sort of God are you expecting me to follow? Should I kill every first-born American male because I don’t like something President Trump has done?

rossum
 
Sophia said:
Right next to the “rational” and “irrational” numbers.
Click to expand...
I don’t mind “rational” because they are the ratio of the numerator and denominator. I agree that irrational is not a good description.

rossum
 
rossum said:
You need to extend your rules further. In Chinese characters, ‘-’ is roughly equivalent to 1, ‘=’ is roughly equivalent to 2 and ‘+’ is roughly equivalent to 4.
Click to expand...
No. + is roughly equivalent to ten or if it is slanted and curved somewhat it could be a seven.
 
Sophia said:
But the question is still the same: is the Mandelbrot set ‘simple’ or ‘complicated’?
Click to expand...
It is simple. The definition is simple and easy to understand.
Let (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
then
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
is the Mandelbrot set.
However, the image of the Mandelbrot set is somewhat elaborate because of the fractal property of the boundary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top