Atheism and being Armenian

[Siggie]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

a projection of 3D data into a 2D space implies a loss of information. is that incomprehensible?

if you evolve inside a 3D world, you will have difficulty grasping what 4D is
and you might claim 4D does not exist.
but it being an illusion or not is not a decidable problem for you. you may believe it is. you may as well believe it is not.

Thank you for distilling it down to the level that even a psych phd should be able to understand.
If that's what you meant, then you were being deliberately obtuse. You're also still not connecting it to any conclusion.

So, what? We can't grasp god because we're in a different realm or something? Is that what you're trying to say?

Who says "God wrote the Bible"? I guess it can depend on what you mean by "write".

Sip says "God wrote the bible".... The word of God wasn't written by God, it was written by witnesses.

And you two... Now you're just looking for nit-picky things to criticize because you have nothing more substantive to say.
Obviously, he's oversimplified the claim that the bible is the inspired word of god. It doesn't even change his argument in the least.
It's still circular logic that we'd never accept in other circumstances.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Who says "God wrote the Bible"? I guess it can depend on what you mean by "write".

Sip says "God wrote the bible".... The word of God wasn't written by God, it was written by witnesses.

[yerazhishda]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Fortunately most discussions about theism, atheism, and religion don't go nearly as far as approaching n-dimensional manifold projections into k-dimensional finite spaces

They boil down to this:

The bible says God exists and God wrote the bible therefore we have a cycle that reinforces itself into a truth.

You don't need fancy shmancy theory and logic to see that is just fundamentally flawed. All the rest of the discussions just go around and around and around this basic premise. So I think the truly intelligent are the ones that can break complicated looking statements into their fundamental components as opposed to getting confused with the complexity of n-dimensional facets that just rise from combining too many things into a statement.

Who says "God wrote the Bible"? I guess it can depend on what you mean by "write".

[gkv]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

nice "word salad" btw. Siggie should appreciate

[gkv]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

"unfortunately" this is not the case here

[Sip]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Fortunately most discussions about theism, atheism, and religion don't go nearly as far as approaching n-dimensional manifold projections into k-dimensional finite spaces

They boil down to this:

The bible says God exists and God wrote the bible therefore we have a cycle that reinforces itself into a truth.

You don't need fancy shmancy theory and logic to see that is just fundamentally flawed. All the rest of the discussions just go around and around and around this basic premise. So I think the truly intelligent are the ones that can break complicated looking statements into their fundamental components as opposed to getting confused with the complexity of n-dimensional facets that just rise from combining too many things into a statement.

[gkv]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

now the straighforward projection of a vector v of dimension n into a a space of dimension m where m < n consists in dropping say the last (n - m) components
let's take n = 3 and m = 2
if you have a vector (1,1,1), you end up with (1,1)
if you take a cube, you'll end up with a square (in some cases). does the square suggest the cube? no it doesn't.
which is why people attempting to show the cube in 2D will use other techniques to suggest the cube for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.5D

this is really trivial stuff even a psychology PhD should be able to understand.

[gkv]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

Ah, a word salad...
I've encountered this in student papers before: Using language to create the impression that you're saying something profound/intelligent/impressive etc., but it's incomprehensible because it's an illusion.

a projection of 3D data into a 2D space implies a loss of information. is that incomprehensible?

if you evolve inside a 3D world, you will have difficulty grasping what 4D is
and you might claim 4D does not exist.
but it being an illusion or not is not a decidable problem for you. you may believe it is. you may as well believe it is not.

[Siggie]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

you want things to be made explicit. well, sometimes this is possible, sometimes it is not.
a projection from a higher dimensional space implies a loss of information along the way. mapping/representing the higher order information/reality thus represents a challenge.
unconventional mappings may, by means of suggestion, hint at the unfathomable better than more expected ones. in all cases, chances of success are scarce.

Ah, a word salad...
I've encountered this in student papers before: Using language to create the impression that you're saying something profound/intelligent/impressive etc., but it's incomprehensible because it's an illusion.

[gkv]

Re: Atheism and being Armenian

you want things to be made explicit. well, sometimes this is possible, sometimes it is not.
a projection from a higher dimensional space implies a loss of information along the way. mapping/representing the higher order information/reality thus represents a challenge.
unconventional mappings may, by means of suggestion, hint at the unfathomable better than more expected ones. in all cases, chances of success are scarce.