US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Ithekro]

Argumentum ad ignorantium. By your reasoning, as long as there remains a "here be dragons" region for scientific inquiry to uncover, anything from fairies to invisible coloured horse-like creatures to slumbering octopus-headed deities have an equal probability of existing. Nice attempt at obscuring your God of the gaps argument under a conciliatory 'everything is possible' spiel, but you have to do better than that.

With billions of billions of stars in billions of billions of galaxies (and possibly even billions of billions of universes)....yes, "anything is possible".

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

With billions of billions of stars in billions of billions of galaxies (and possibly even billions of billions of universes)....yes, "anything is possible".

Being able to accept that there may be vast possibilities in what remains yet unknown is good science. Considering any of these possibilities to be true before the concrete evidence is in is good science fiction.

[Zetsubo]

In the USSR one of its great failings was LYSENKOISM

This is the shit that can happen even to scientists and engineers.

As some one once pointed out... pet theories and corruption by power... is a bitch.

[Vena]

I couldn't help it... ignore my post, its irrelevant to the topic.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Being able to accept that there may be vast possibilities in what remains yet unknown is good science. Considering any of these possibilities to be true before the concrete evidence is in is good science fiction.

I'm not sure I get your point here. If people were to be that closed minded about how they faced science than half of the theories of the modern day Physics would not exist because there is nothing to base them on aside from arbitrary math that we've invented and with which we can make just about any random nonsense seem feasible. Considering most people don't consider effectively *unprovable* high order physics theory bad science (maybe one could call them misguided) (String, M, Higher Dimensionality, Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, Heim, and on and on this list goes), I'm really unsure of where or how to take what you've written. Its not like these established theories are science fiction... but they certainly aren't grounded on any sort of hard observational fact... but by the definition provided they'd be science fiction.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited
to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."
- Albert Einstein

I'm with Albert on this, and I'll go further to say that if you can imagine then consider it possible. It doesn't matter if that possibility will happen in your life time or if any human will ever see it, but over an infinite space and time that possibility exists. Purely on confusing (il)logical grounds, we can say that since no thing is impossible (and limited only by infinitesimally small probabilities) given an axis that goes to infinity then eventually any probability, no matter how small, will occur.

[Vexx]

there is nothing to base them on aside from arbitrary math that we've invented and with which we can make just about any random nonsense seem feasible. Considering most people don't consider effectively *unprovable* high order physics theory bad science (maybe one could call them misguided) (String, M, Higher Dimensionality, Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, Heim, and on and on this list goes),

Math is not "arbitrary" and I'm not sure where you get from there to "random nonsense". New observations often occur because the math predicts their existence (example: the neutrino was a mathematical "remainder" for a few decades before it was spotted). The "many worlds" theory is one possible interpretation of quantum mechanics - one of the most thoroughly tested theories ever. The single photon interference experiments explicitly lead to the idea that there are alternate realities. Observation leads to math model leads to new observations that reinforce the model (or force the discarding of it)

Now.... the idea of magical books, invisible unicorns, super-beings for which there is no evidence who damn you for wearing poly-cotton blend clothing .... untestable, unobservable, can't build a model for it.

What Ascaloth is referencing is that there's an expanding wavefront of knowledge, science, and critical thinking. Behind the wavefront is rock solid modeling, at the wavefront we have more than one explanation for observations and we have to knock them together to see which breaks. In front of the wave, we have possibility - its somewhat foreseeable but foggy, a paradigm shift is always a possibility.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Vena

I'm not sure I get your point here. If people were to be that closed minded about how they faced science than half of the theories of the modern day Physics would not exist because there is nothing to base them on aside from arbitrary math that we've invented and with which we can make just about any random nonsense seem feasible. Considering most people don't consider effectively *unprovable* high order physics theory bad science (maybe one could call them misguided) (String, M, Higher Dimensionality, Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, Heim, and on and on this list goes), I'm really unsure of where or how to take what you've written. Its not like these established theories are science fiction... but they certainly aren't grounded on any sort of hard observational fact... but by the definition provided they'd be science fiction.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited
to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."
- Albert Einstein

I'm with Albert on this, and I'll go further to say that if you can imagine then consider it possible. It doesn't matter if that possibility will happen in your life time or if any human will ever see it, but over an infinite space and time that possibility exists. Purely on confusing (il)logical grounds, we can say that since no thing is impossible (and limited only by infinitesimally small probabilities) given an axis that goes to infinity then eventually any probability, no matter how small, will occur.

Ignoratio elenchi by way of false analogy based on a petitio principii. Firstly, on what basis do you claim that the higher order physics you've mentioned are "effectively unprovable"? In fact, they are for the most part hypotheses crafted out of advanced mathematical formulae, and while it is true that none of these hypotheses have been proven conclusively, that does not make them unfalsifiable claims; it simply means we currently do not have the equipment to test these claims yet. Even then the Large Hadron Collider is a good first step to acquiring the advanced technology we will need to test such claims in the far future.

Secondly, on what basis do you assume the existence of an 'infinite axis'? As far as I know, current scientific theory leans towards a finite universe, so what proofs do you have to assume the 'infinite axis' as an axiom?

Thirdly, what do these advanced physics hypotheses have to do with the supernatural claims I was addressing earlier? While the former are the product of imagination grounded in advanced mathematics and can be conceivably tested for falsibility in the future, the latter are grounded in little more than sheer imagination. Lesson of the day; the probabilities of two unproven concepts are not the same, and can differ depending on various influencing factors.

Finally, what has your entire spiel got to do with my statement? I was simply pointing out that overstating the probability of a given event just because it may be possible is not scientific methodology, although it may be good as science fiction/fantasy fodder. You are merely doing the very same thing I pointed out, based on unwarranted assumptions and false premises.

Try again.

[Vena]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Math is not "arbitrary" and I'm not sure where you get from there to "random nonsense". New observations often occur because the math predicts their existence (example: the neutrino was a mathematical "remainder" for a few decades before it was spotted). The "many worlds" theory is one possible interpretation of quantum mechanics - one of the most thoroughly tested theories ever. The single photon interference experiments explicitly lead to the idea that there are alternate realities. Observation leads to math model leads to new observations that reinforce the model (or force the discarding of it)

I was saying it more that math is a construct that we've created to explain our observables (arbitrary was the wrong word but I blame that on the time of night), but it does not necessarily have to hold true for the remaining infinity of the universe(s). Just as our definitions (equations, concepts, imaginings) of space break down when you exceed certain distances albeit very large Hubble distances.

---We agree on the following.---

The neutrino, Einstein's cosmological constant, aether, and on and on, are remnants of math and theory that at times lead to new observations/definitions or are themselves overturned by newer takes on theory with new approaches of math; and so while mathematical remainders may at times lead to something (that something being many times largely unknown in meaning) they may also be deceptive dead ends. Many-worlds is a possibility and can be used to explain the photon interference experiments, certainly, but it is not the only model and it is not the only possibility, because the test of the many-worlds meaning is currently beyond the scope of possibility. Observation leads to imagination leads to modelling leads to either new observations or a dead end.

---More personal views.---

But all of this is only true within our human-centric understanding and rationality of the universe. As I said, if we consider space infinite or time endless, than any possibility no matter how small can be argued to become a possibility along either (or both) of those axises. Which leads to the possibility that either our mathematics and reasoning logic that created said mathematics breaks down at some point or that it could eventually become a passed truth. Black holes are still that pesky *thing* that likes to mess with all our current physics... though we could call them un-observables and be witty.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Now.... the idea of magical books, invisible unicorns, super-beings for which there is no evidence who damn you for wearing poly-cotton blend clothing .... untestable, unobservable, can't build a model for it.

I wasn't actually referencing the larger narrative at all, just that one quote.

But... String/M/Brane/Bulk seem to fit the "untestable, unobservable, can't build a model for it" mantra, and yet they are considered good science, are they not? Though I'd sooner define them as philosophies at this point. (Unless I'm missing something, or haven't been reading up... which I'll admit is the case for some of those topics as my interest in Randall's work on bulk has declined in recent times.)

Originally Posted by Vexx

What Ascaloth is saying is that there's an expanding wavefront of knowledge, science, and critical thinking. Behind the wavefront is rock solid modeling, at the wavefront we have more than one explanation for observations and we have to knock them together to see which breaks. In front of the wave, we have possibility - its somewhat foreseeable but foggy, a paradigm shift is always a possibility.

I got it better now... how much I agree with the totality of his statement is subject thought.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Firstly, on what basis do you claim that the higher order physics you've mentioned are "effectively unprovable"? In fact, they are for the most part hypotheses crafted out of advanced mathematical formulae, and while it is true that none of these hypotheses have been proven conclusively, that does not make them unfalsifiable claims; it simply means we currently do not have the equipment to test these claims yet. Even then the Large Hadron Collider is a good first step to acquiring the advanced technology we will need to test such claims in the far future.

Many of those high order theories are beyond being falsifiable or otherwise, at this point in time, which makes them quite hard to discern/differentiate from philosophy, and I know of professors who will call them just that. String Theory, the goliath that it was only a few years back, is neither provable or disprovable by any current standards, and it exists in a realm closer to philosophy. Could it be right? Sure, I'm always open to the possibility. Could it be wrong? Sure, I'm always open to the possibility. The sheer number of brane theories shows just how many different meanings one can pull from "advanced mathematical formulae", but without any method of testing, confirming, or disproving these theories they fall into a pretty murky zone somewhere between philosophy and physics.

We also do not currently have the equipment to escape the Hubble scale of our known universe, nor the equipment to delve beyond a Planck Length. I'm not going to say that pink elephants exist beyond the outer reaches of space but everything we know about the universe and mathematics may only be true to a point.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Secondly, on what basis do you assume the existence of an 'infinite axis'? As far as I know, current scientific theory leans towards a finite universe, so what proofs do you have to assume the 'infinite axis' as an axiom?

OUR universe is finite. The universe itself has no such limitations without reaching into unanswerable questions of "where did the big bang come from".

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Thirdly, what do these advanced physics hypotheses have to do with the supernatural claims I was addressing earlier? While the former are the product of imagination grounded in advanced mathematics and can be conceivably tested for falsibility in the future, the latter are grounded in little more than sheer imagination. Lesson of the day; the probabilities of two unproven concepts are not the same, and can differ depending on various influencing factors.

Finally, what has your entire spiel got to do with my statement? I was simply pointing out that overstating the probability of a given event just because it may be possible is not scientific methodology, although it may be good as science fiction/fantasy fodder. You are merely doing the very same thing I pointed out, based on unwarranted assumptions and false premises.

Utterly nothing, actually. I wasn't addressing the larger narrative.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Vena

But... String/M/Brane/Bulk seem to fit the "untestable, unobservable, can't build a model for it" mantra, and yet they are considered good science, are they not? Though I'd sooner define them as philosophies at this point. (Unless I'm missing something, or haven't been reading up... which I'll admit is the case for some of those topics as my interest in Randall's work on bulk has declined in recent times.)



I got it better now... how much I agree with the totality of his statement is subject thought.

Those .... notions fit the "we don't yet have the equipment to test it" and they (so far) fail to predict anything we can test for. OTOH, they're the extreme edge of theoretical physics where the speculative brainstorming is way ahead of testability. Think of them as fun thought experiments so far.... I do fault television documentaries and people like Brian Greene for blathering as if they were fact instead of just brainstorming ideas to explain some of the oddities we're seeing at the extremes.

I do love reading about them... but they're more speculative. Like any brainstorming session, you throw ideas out and at some point epiphanies happen.

[Vena]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Those .... notions fit the "we don't yet have the equipment to test it" and they (so far) fail to predict anything we can test for. OTOH, they're the extreme edge of theoretical physics where the speculative brainstorming is way ahead of testability. Think of them as fun thought experiments so far.... I do fault television documentaries and people like Brian Greene for blathering as if they were fact instead of just brainstorming ideas to explain some of the oddities we're seeing at the extremes.

I do love reading about them... but they're more speculative. Like any brainstorming session, you throw ideas out and at some point epiphanies happen.

Their inability to predict testables and limitations to "sometime in the future, maybe", tend to push these theories into philosophy (for me) moreso than physics (and as such I tend to look at them as "untestable, unobservable", even if ~models~ exist for them). I can appreciate (and have worked with) the math involved in them but even still they have this untouchable/ethereal quality to them that I feel will be left unanswered by the (un)timely demise of our species. But yes, I consider them as thought experiments much in the same vein as duality or pastafarius (jokingly)...

I'm not a materialist/physicalist (strange as that may be coming from a physicist).

That said, they are a joy to read when written in a comprehensible language... when you start involving fractional differential calculus... things get messy (as an example).

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Vena

Many of those high order theories are beyond being falsifiable or otherwise, at this point in time, which makes them quite hard to discern/differentiate from philosophy, and I know of professors who will call them just that. String Theory, the goliath that it was only a few years back, is neither provable or disprovable by any current standards, and it exists in a realm closer to philosophy. Could it be right? Sure, I'm always open to the possibility. Could it be wrong? Sure, I'm always open to the possibility. The sheer number of brane theories shows just how many different meanings one can pull from "advanced mathematical formulae", but without any method of testing, confirming, or disproving these theories they fall into a pretty murky zone somewhere between philosophy and physics.

We also do not currently have the equipment to escape the Hubble scale of our known universe, nor the equipment to delve beyond a Planck Length. I'm not going to say that pink elephants exist beyond the outer reaches of space but everything we know about the universe and mathematics may only be true to a point.

I fail to see how not having the technology to test those hypotheses causes them to "fall into a pretty murky zone somewhere between philosophy and physics". It simply means they are currently untestable hypotheses with our current technology, and it certainly doesn't mean they will remain unfalsifiable in the light of future developments. Attempting to miscategorize what are effectively, as Vexx-jiji described, thought experiments as quasi-philosophical ramblings based on the words of your unnamed professors constitutes an argumentum ad verecundiam.

And yes, please tell me something I don't know about model-dependent realism. Scientific methodology simply means that if something not predicted by our current models of reality happens, we simply construct a new model to describe how that new phenomenum fits with what we know of our current reality.

OUR universe is finite. The universe itself has no such limitations without reaching into unanswerable questions of "where did the big bang come from".

That does not answer my question, and is simply a meaningless statement borne out of either genuine confusion or an attempt to dodge the question on your part. Once again, on what basis do you assume an "infinite axis" from?

Utterly nothing, actually. I wasn't addressing the larger narrative.

So you concede these two points, then? Noted.

[Vena]

Sorry for the delay, I had to make some food and tea to keep awake.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

I fail to see how not having the technology to test those hypotheses causes them to "fall into a pretty murky zone somewhere between philosophy and physics". It simply means they are currently untestable hypotheses with our current technology, and it certainly doesn't mean they will remain unfalsifiable in the light of future developments. Attempting to miscategorize what are effectively, as Vexx-jiji described, thought experiments as quasi-philosophical ramblings based on the words of your unnamed professors constitutes an argumentum ad verecundiam.

It also doesn't mean they will bear any fruit because as they stand now, they are not complete and will not be complete physical theories until they offer something testable. As such, until they have something that can ground them or remove them from the possibility to being physical theories, they are in a murky zone that is between mathematical and physical thought experiments (As an edit, isn't a thought experiment a type of philosophy on some levels? Or is my understanding completely incorrect?) and physics.

They are not mature enough to be considered physical theory.
They are not pure philosophy because they seek to define testable possibilities.

Feel free to enlighten me if I am just completely off basis, though. Its 2 Am and I'm all ears to learn something new.

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

And yes, please tell me something I don't know about model-dependent realism. Scientific methodology simply means that if something not predicted by our current models of reality happens, we simply construct a new model to describe how that new phenomenum fits with what we know of our current reality.

I do not think I was trying to tell you anything you didn't know...

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

That does not answer my question, and is simply a meaningless statement borne out of either genuine confusion or an attempt to dodge the question on your part. Once again, on what basis do you assume an "infinite axis" from?

Infinite time axis? Where is zero? Where does it end? Infinite space axises? Why does the universe have a limit? The current Hubble Limit is only an observable and is expanding. If we follow GR and Inflationary Cosmology (barring a second epoch) then the universe has no reason to cease expanding to an infinite size even if it will eventually lead to the end of life in said universe. Current physics pertaining to the end of the universe speaks of an entropic death, does it not? Entropic death will eventually bring everything into the maximally favorable state from which nothing will eventually be form-able and from which motion will be impossible. That does not, however, mean that the universe has somehow ceased to exist.

Are we perhaps on different pages with what we're talking about? So I may be genuinely confused as to what you're asking me...

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

So you concede these two points, then? Noted.

I wasn't arguing them to begin with, so they are all yours.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Vena

It also doesn't mean they will bear any fruit because as they stand now, they are not complete and will not be complete physical theories until they offer something testable. As such, until they have something that can ground them or remove them from the possibility to being physical theories, they are in a murky zone that is between mathematical and physical thought experiments (As an edit, isn't a thought experiment a type of philosophy on some levels? Or is my understanding completely incorrect?) and physics.

They are not mature enough to be considered physical theory.
They are not pure philosophy because they seek to define testable possibilities.

Feel free to enlighten me if I am just completely off basis, though. Its 2 Am and I'm all ears to learn something new.

Why do you think I keep calling them hypotheses? I would explain it to you, but at this point, I think I'd save myself quite a bit of time and effort by simply linking the definition of the word to you.

And how is a thought experiment equivalent to a philosophy?

Infinite time axis? Where is zero? Where does it end? Infinite space axises? Why does the universe have a limit? The current Hubble Limit is only an observable and is expanding. If we follow GR and Inflationary Cosmology (barring a second epoch) then the universe has no reason to cease expanding to an infinite size even if it will eventually lead to the end of life in said universe. Current physics pertaining to the end of the universe speaks of an entropic death, does it not? Entropic death will eventually bring everything into the maximally favorable state from which nothing will eventually be form-able and from which motion will be impossible. That does not, however, mean that the universe has somehow ceased to exist.

Are we perhaps on different pages with what we're talking about? So I may be genuinely confused as to what you're asking me...

Google 'measure problem in eternal inflation'. For a couple of resources, take a look at these.

Granted, this too is just a hypothesis, and may not pan out to anything in the end. Nevertheless, it does highlight the fact that there might not be a guarantee that the universe will go on forever, since if it were otherwise, it may very well lead to a breakdown in the laws of physics itself.

My point is, don't take your "infinite axis" concept as an axiom. It might well be proven wrong in time, and then where will you be?

[Ithekro]

and then where will you be?

Probably the same place, just relative to something else.

[Solace]

If we follow GR and Inflationary Cosmology (barring a second epoch) then the universe has no reason to cease expanding to an infinite size even if it will eventually lead to the end of life in said universe. Current physics pertaining to the end of the universe speaks of an entropic death, does it not? Entropic death will eventually bring everything into the maximally favorable state from which nothing will eventually be form-able and from which motion will be impossible. That does not, however, mean that the universe has somehow ceased to exist.

The universe "runs" on energy. Think of it like this: to make fire, you need wood to combust at very high temperatures, right? Can you turn the fire, that heat, back into wood? No. Why? Because the kinetic potential of the wood has been exhausted. So, the fire burns out, the heat dissipates, and the wood is now charcoal.

The universe is theorized to have started with a centralized explosion (big bang theory). We know the universe, if not created in this fashion, is at least expanding away from our perspective and is using up the energy that caused that expansion. We also know that certain elements are fuel, and others are not. The point here is that when the stars burn out, when the universe runs out of kinetic energy, everything will stop. Like frozen in time stop, eventually. The universe, while it may exist, will for all intents and purposes be dead, including everything in it.

When you die, we dispose of your remains and it returns to nature. You cease, as a human, to exist. We could stick you in cold storage, preserve your body until the end of time, and you'd still be...dead. You're not active. You just sit there. You're as useless as a rock.

Such will be the fate of the universe, one day. Unless you make a contract. Would you like to make a contract? I think you should.



I think we should be talking about elections, not physics.

[ganbaru]

Romney, Obama campaign spar over China policy
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...81F0ZU20120216

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama's campaign sparred on Thursday over whether the White House is too weak on China, a hot topic that is gaining prominence ahead of November's U.S. election.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Romney accused Obama of "almost begging" Beijing to buy U.S. debt. His comments were timed to coincide with the visit of China's leader-in-waiting, Xi Jinping, who held talks with Obama at the White House this week.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Romney, Obama campaign spar over China policy
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...81F0ZU20120216

Seriously, there is no right or wrong way to deal with China.

The fact is China and America are both capable of screwing the entire planet's economy all by themselves. Overnight, if needed be. An economic dispute between the two countries would be a financial version of M.A.D. and take the rest of the world down with them.

I would rather USA not play chicken with China. This means being serious and not trying to be a cowboy. Something neither Romney nor Santorum are qualified to do. And forget about Gingrich.

[monsta666]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The fact is China and America are both capable of screwing the entire planet's economy all by themselves. Overnight, if needed be. An economic dispute between the two countries would be a financial version of M.A.D. and take the rest of the world down with them.

I do think this dispute between China and the US is just a case of brinkmanship; despite the threats I don't think either nation will make good on their threats. It is just a game of chicken or probably what is more accurate; it is a way to test each others resolve.

In any case this incident does have a precedent and the US have even been in this position before albeit in the position of China in the past. Before the great depression it was the UK who were in the US's shoes advocating for free trade while the US who was the world's workshop and creditor of the world wanted to maintain protectionist measures for its key industries. Eventually the UK, despite being the debtor nation to the US took action and enacted protectionist policies which made the depression that much worse. All countries suffered because of it but what was surprising was the export driven creditor countries suffered the most. So while on surface it may seem like the creditor nations (such as China or Germany in the EU) with enormous foreign reserves hold the aces it is in fact the debtor nation (such as the US now) that hold the ultimate power. Although it is a game of mutual pain (not sure I would go so far to call it mutual destruction) one nation will suffer more from such games and it will be the creditor nations that suffer the most.

At the end of the day if China loses its number one customer, its export industries become worthless. It is one of the chief reasons why China (and Japan) has allowed the US to run chronically high trade deficits and lend the US so much money; the Chinese simply have no other market to sell that level of goods. It is quite a bizarre dynamic where the US ran out of its own money so the China's lend the US money so they will keep spending and the Chinese can still keep its factories open and continue producing their products. However if the debtor nation does decide it MUST reduce its unemployment numbers then it could stop this dynamic and simply start building homemade factories to put these unemployed people back to work. Sure it won't be as competitive or as efficient as international competition thus in the long run it is bad for everyone, it does allow the said country to make gains but at the expense of everyone else. That sort of policy will have blowback though in the form of foreign nations calling them in with their loans or trade embargoes etc which can cripple other sectors of the economy and thus prolonging the recession.

Also one should note this isn't the only way the US could wreck the world economy. If the US decides to invade Iran and the worst case scenario develops where oil supplies in Iran are cut off AND Iran decide to block the Strait of Hormuz (where 15-20% of exported oil in the world pass through) either through military force or via mines then that will cause the price of oil to truly sky-rocket which will cripple the economies of many countries. This shock could be enough to cause the unstable EU to implode and a EU implosion could then send shockwaves around the world that can result in cascading economic failures around the world. Now you can also argue that this is simply another case of brinkmanship which could well be the case... In either case it shows the potential dangers of our world as we could be screwed over on two fronts.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Solace

Such will be the fate of the universe, one day. Unless you make a contract. Would you like to make a contract? I think you should.

With her?



Absolutely.

Originally Posted by monsta666

Also one should note this isn't the only way the US could wreck the world economy. If the US decides to invade Iran and the worst case scenario develops where oil supplies in Iran are cut off AND Iran decide to block the Strait of Hormuz (where 15-20% of exported oil in the world pass through) either through military force or via mines then that will cause the price of oil to truly sky-rocket which will cripple the economies of many countries. This shock could be enough to cause the unstable EU to implode and a EU implosion could then send shockwaves around the world that can result in cascading economic failures around the world. Now you can also argue that this is simply another case of brinkmanship which could well be the case... In either case it shows the potential dangers of our world as we could be screwed over on two fronts.

You should take a look at the numbers on ICE.

The thing about US invading Iran is just like another Arab Oil Embargo in the 1973-1974, tons of shit hitting the fan, but the world will still live. The problem is the political damage and aftermath that could lead to destabilisation of the entire Middle East, as Iran is well known to have supplied insurgents with advanced arms and equipment.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Seriously, there is no right or wrong way to deal with China.

The fact is China and America are both capable of screwing the entire planet's economy all by themselves. Overnight, if needed be. An economic dispute between the two countries would be a financial version of M.A.D. and take the rest of the world down with them.

I would rather USA not play chicken with China. This means being serious and not trying to be a cowboy. Something neither Romney nor Santorum are qualified to do. And forget about Gingrich.

In proper English :

US screwed up the world economy in the past.
China will screw up the world economy in the future.

QED.

Go away TRL. There is nothing wrong with my English here.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

C'mon Don, aren't you an engineering student? Life is not made up of absolutes, and neither is science. We dealt with uncertainties in every single experiment in research. The nature of the job is not absolutes or variable reduction - that's just what you need to reach the end result. The nature of the job is critical thinking, and examining all of the data before you to make further decisions off of.

The ability to do that isn't limited to scientists, of course. There are even scientists who don't do that (shame on them). More importantly, nobody can know all science, and I don't expect politicians to, either. That's why you receive consults from experts. Yet many modern politicians seem content to ignore the data before them, and to ignore the opinions of experts. They make decisions based off of their gut, their "values," and their feelings. That is no way to lead.

I'm not saying that the average engineering student isn't aware of the fact that not all aspects of life are made up of absolutes. But, engineers are used to working with absolutes, and they're used to distancing themselves from a problem and looking at it in an unemotional problem solving manner. This is great in Engineering, and even business, but I don't think it's universally appropriate. When an engineer starts problem solving, he naturally begins to look at things in absolute terms, because due to his long years of doing it, he's used to it. Because of that, he may assume things are solvable, which are not solvable! I think the engineering approach can produce big problems when it's being used to deal with fuzzy "human" problems. For instance, I can't help but think that the influence of Engineers in Finance and Economics has been quite detrimental. An Engineer might produce a mathematical absolute solution, which works quite well, but it will not be able to take into account that economics and finance have a big "human" element that can not be simply described with mathematics.

Engineers are not used to professionally dealing with human problems. Due to the work they do, they're conditioned to think in a certain way, a way that is not universally appropriate.

And finally, Engineers might be very smart, and great at mathematics, but I haven't met many engineers who are particularly charismatic. Inspirations to the people they aren't. And so, it doesn't matter if the engineer has the right ideas, if he isn't able to convince people to follow him, they're useless. I haven't met many engineers who are really good at explaining things to a relatively uninformed public. The personality type of people who choose to study engineering just isn't suited to it.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any engineers in congress, but I don't think a China style technocracy where the vast majority of the people in power are Engineers works. China might have the right industrial policy, but industry is not everything.


@Religion: I don't think it's true that all religions are equally implausible. Some religions are simply more illogical then others, or more easily fit into a scientific world view. For instance, I'd argue that Islam largely makes more logical sense then Christianity. The God of Islam does not have human characteristics, is not personal, has none of this weird "Trinity" malarchy, and none of this "died for our sins" stuff. There's still plenty that doesn't make sense, but not as much. It might be one reason why Islam has endured better in the face of secularism.

Buddhism makes even more sense, there's very little in "core" buddhism that doesn't contradict reality, and I don't know any logical arguments that can really prove it's not true (whereas Christianity, and to a lesser extent Islam has a lot of logical "holes").

From a human experience point of view, polytheism makes more sense then any of the above, but logically, it makes far less sense. Greek Polytheism says that lightning is sent by Zeus, but we can fairly predict where lightning might occur. A more monotheistic religion, like Christianity, is a lot more vague on natural phenomena("He works in mysterious ways!"), and so difficult to make a counter argument against.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

@Religion: I don't think it's true that all religions are equally implausible. Some religions are simply more illogical then others, or more easily fit into a scientific world view. For instance, I'd argue that Islam largely makes more logical sense then Christianity. The God of Islam does not have human characteristics, is not personal, has none of this weird "Trinity" malarchy, and none of this "died for our sins" stuff. There's still plenty that doesn't make sense, but not as much. It might be one reason why Islam has endured better in the face of secularism.

Buddhism makes even more sense, there's very little in "core" buddhism that doesn't contradict reality, and I don't know any logical arguments that can really prove it's not true (whereas Christianity, and to a lesser extent Islam has a lot of logical "holes").

From a human experience point of view, polytheism makes more sense then any of the above, but logically, it makes far less sense. Greek Polytheism says that lightning is sent by Zeus, but we can fairly predict where lightning might occur. A more monotheistic religion, like Christianity, is a lot more vague on natural phenomena("He works in mysterious ways!"), and so difficult to make a counter argument against.

The more I understand science, the less I care about the concept of "making sense".

In the end, you don't need to be right to make sense. Making sense is just intuition, instinct, gut feeling. Plenty of real life sciences are counter-intuitive.

That's why I don't really care to differentiate between one religious belief from another in terms of "realism". For all we know, the universe could be created by an obscure deity worshipped by some tribe on an island, who occasionally throw chickens into a volcano to appease their Goddess. Reality never cares if people believe in it or not. So if there is a god or gods, I am prepared to think all religions can have a chance to be true.
Even Pastafarian. (No one said a religion had to be OLD.)