Orwellian Nightmare: Science Is Whatever 'the Party' Says It Is
MCP
By Frank J. Tipler
Last week I was on a university panel formed to debate the issue of science
and religion. My argument was the same one I've been making for years: given
the known laws of physics - in particular, general relativity (Einstein's
theory of gravity) and quantum mechanics - we have no choice but to conclude
that God exists.
I defined "God" as the "uncaused first cause," which is the definition used
by St. Thomas Aquinas in his "second way" (Aquinas' second of five proofs of
God's existence). Aquinas took his proof from Moses Maimonides, who in turn
took it from the Kalam Muslim theologians. That is, these leading
theologians of the three leading monotheist religions all defined "God" the
same way, so I thought this would be an acceptable definition. Knowing what
is meant by the word "God," we can now use physics to see if there is indeed
"God" out there.
There is. The laws of physics tell us that the universe began about 14
billion years ago at the initial (or big bang) singularity. What is this
"singularity"? Looking at its properties, one sees that it is the uncaused
first cause. Something that is the cause of all causes, but Himself without
a cause. Given the laws of physics, the existence of the initial singularity
follows necessarily from the mathematics. Now of course we cannot be certain
that the laws of physics are correct. We learn about nature via experiment,
and new experiments may tell us tomorrow that general relativity and quantum
mechanics are just limits of more fundamental laws, which do not possess an
initial singularity.
I doubt this, since general relativity and quantum mechanics can themselves
be shown mathematically to be special cases of the classical mechanics as
developed in the nineteenth century. So there is no evidence, experimental
or theoretical, that there are any laws of physics more fundamental than
general relativity or quantum mechanics. But I can't rule it out. In science
we can only say that the truth of these two theories is highly probable, not
certain.
But given these laws of physics, the singularity is certain. It is certain
because His existence follows of necessity, from the mathematical analysis
of the equations of relativity and quantum mechanics. Given the laws of
physics, the existence of the singularity is as certain as 2 + 2 = 4.
I made this point on the panel. No one challenged the laws. No one
challenged my calculations. What they challenged was my statement that 2 + 2
= 4!
I was told that 2 + 2 = 4 is merely a matter of opinion. I was told that
G�del showed mathematics could be inconsistent, so anything goes. (Actually,
2 + 2 = 4 is a theorem of Presburger arithmetic, which is arithmetic with
addition and subtraction only, and Presburger arithmetic is, and has been
proven to be, decidable, complete, and consistent.)
I've had this experience several times now. University faculties now teach
that truth is whatever the consensus of the faculty says it is (this was
made explicit is the Berkeley faculty handbook a few years ago). This idea
that the ruling group of faculty can establish truth by authority, even over
the truths of mathematics like 2 + 2 = 4, has a chilling Orwellian flavor.
Literally.
George Orwell's classic 1984 ends with the hero Winston, who believes that
truth is something external to mankind and unalterable by any human agency,
being tortured by O'Brien, the head of the ruling party's secret police. In
Orwell's own words:
O'Brien held up his left hand, its back toward Winston, with the thumb
hidden and the four fingers extended.
"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston."
"Four."
"And if the Party says it is not four but five - then how many?"
"Four."
The word ended in a gasp of pain [as O'Brien sent a strong electric
current through Winston]. .
"How many fingers, Winston?"
"Four." [Again O'Brien applied the current] .
"You are a slow learner, Winston," said O'Brien gently.
"How can I help it?" he blubbered. "How can I help seeing what is in front
of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three.
Sometimes they are all of them at once."
The Party - the political class of the world - does not want God to exist.
Therefore, if the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics say He does,
then the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics must be changed to
whatever the Party wants.
Therefore, God does not exist. He must not be mentioned, must not be prayed
to in class.
The Party wants the Earth to be warming, so that its members can establish
their power over every aspect of our lives. The Earth has not warmed in a
decade, in fact it has gotten colder. But the Party says warmer, and
further, says that the warming is due to human addition of CO2 to the
atmosphere.
For years, as we have learned from Climategate, climate "scientists" have
been fudging the data to obtain the result wanted by the Party. Today,
following the decree of the Party, the EPA announces that the Earth is
indeed getting warmer, and that indeed, CO2 is responsible for the warming.
God help us
the wharf rat
MCP <gf010...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Last week I was on a university panel formed to debate the issue of science
>and religion. My argument was the same one I've been making for years: given
>the known laws of physics - in particular, general relativity (Einstein's
>theory of gravity) and quantum mechanics - we have no choice but to conclude
>that God exists.
Isn't this the same old "We don't know what caused it so it must
have been God" line of...reasoning...?
It's improper logic. Not scientific at all.
Masculist
> In article <A33Wm.30889$Jo5.24...@newsfe24.ams2>,
>
> MCP <gf010w5...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Last week I was on a university panel formed to debate the issue of science
> >and religion. My argument was the same one I've been making for years: given
> >the known laws of physics - in particular, general relativity (Einstein's
> >theory of gravity) and quantum mechanics - we have no choice but to conclude
> >that God exists.
>
> Isn't this the same old "We don't know what caused it so it must
> have been God" line of...reasoning...?
>
> It's improper logic. Not scientific at all.
How about G-d? Or "Father"? That works!
Tom
Andrew Usher
> http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/12/15/orwellian-nightmare-science-is-whatever-the-party-says-it-is/
>
> By Frank J. Tipler
Well the Party is not always wrong. I understand the science enough to
know that global warming must exist. I think, though, there is good
reason to believe that the dangers are quite exaggerated by the
warming promoters. Finally I don't get what the existence of God has
to do with it.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> MCP wrote:
> >http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/12/15/orwellian-nightmare-science-is-wh...
>
> > By Frank J. Tipler
>
> Well the Party is not always wrong. I understand the science enough to
> know that global warming must exist. I think, though, there is good
> reason to believe that the dangers are quite exaggerated by the
> warming promoters. Finally I don't get what the existence of God has
> to do with it.
The marxists have set things up so that it is the pagans (science) vs
the Christians. Science didn't have to be dragged into this thing but
for marxists to gain more power they thought it expedient to do so.
The marxists cut their teeth coopting and politicizing the American
Academy first in the social sciences. Now they are well along in
taking over the phisical sciences. Feminism BTW, is their most
effective tool in doing so.
Have you been on campus lately Andrew? Just looking at the posters
and activities makes it clear the marxists rule the place. I even
checked out podcasts of courses at allegedly conservative Stanford and
they reek of marxist propaganda
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > Well the Party is not always wrong. I understand the science enough to
> > know that global warming must exist. I think, though, there is good
> > reason to believe that the dangers are quite exaggerated by the
> > warming promoters. Finally I don't get what the existence of God has
> > to do with it.
>
> The marxists have set things up so that it is the pagans (science) vs
> the Christians. Science didn't have to be dragged into this thing but
> for marxists to gain more power they thought it expedient to do so.
Into what? I don't think religion says anything about global warming.
Now, if people because of religion believe that men can't possibly be
damaging the earth, then it is relevant.
> The marxists cut their teeth coopting and politicizing the American
> Academy first in the social sciences. Now they are well along in
> taking over the phisical sciences. Feminism BTW, is their most
> effective tool in doing so.
I don't see how feminism applies to the physical sciences. Espeically,
the global warming debate seems to have no mention of feminism.
> Have you been on campus lately Andrew? Just looking at the posters
> and activities makes it clear the marxists rule the place. I even
> checked out podcasts of courses at allegedly conservative Stanford and
> they reek of marxist propaganda
No doubt, this isn't new.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> Masculist wrote:
> > > Well the Party is not always wrong. I understand the science enough to
> > > know that global warming must exist. I think, though, there is good
> > > reason to believe that the dangers are quite exaggerated by the
> > > warming promoters. Finally I don't get what the existence of God has
> > > to do with it.
>
> > The marxists have set things up so that it is the pagans (science) vs
> > the Christians. Science didn't have to be dragged into this thing but
> > for marxists to gain more power they thought it expedient to do so.
>
> Into what? I don't think religion says anything about global warming.
You need to study some theology and some history too. None of this is
new...it all started with the Enlightenment and has been pretty
consistent since. Marxism is actually a pagan religion and sees
itself in competition with the Catholic Church...or any Church for
that matter. This became more overt when the Left began to embrace
feminism for real starting in the Sixites though it really started
with FDR. Before that the Dems were actually conservative Christians
and the marxists just a interest group on the Left.
> Now, if people because of religion believe that men can't possibly be
> damaging the earth, then it is relevant.
I never heard that but I have heard recently Pelosi saying at the
Climate Change summit, "Climate Change is a women's issue". Does that
clinch it for you Andrew?
> > The marxists cut their teeth coopting and politicizing the American
> > Academy first in the social sciences. Now they are well along in
> > taking over the phisical sciences. Feminism BTW, is their most
> > effective tool in doing so.
>
> I don't see how feminism applies to the physical sciences. Espeically,
> the global warming debate seems to have no mention of feminism.
Ha, ha, ha, if the feminists can fool you just think how easy it is
for them to fool anyone else! Man, you have huge holes in your
knowledge of how politics works, especially vis a vis feminism.
The feminists took over the social sciences by the Sixties and with
the takeover the Left in '72 it was a done deal. How did they take it
over? PC is powerful with those pussy intellectuals plus more women
were being hired than men. Government grants....ever heard of them?
That is another way they keep people in line.
Now the feminists have huge control in the academy thanks to
feminism. They can get their people hired anywhere in the academy
through their influence. Dig this, at UCSB they have a huge new Nano
Technology program and guess who was put in charge of it? A Feminist
Studies professor! Just think how she can influence the scientists
working under her and get her people hired. That's how Andrew and it
is pretty much a done deal in the sciences. They are even taking over
the techies! I listen to tech podcasts and the men doing them are
forced to have women on their programs. Those women are good looking
and take things over and are totally indebted to the feminists.
> > Have you been on campus lately Andrew? Just looking at the posters
> > and activities makes it clear the marxists rule the place. I even
> > checked out podcasts of courses at allegedly conservative Stanford and
> > they reek of marxist propaganda
>
> No doubt, this isn't new.
True, but it has become more radical compared to past decades and more
thorough.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
retardsman
> On Dec 17, 6:10 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Masculistwrote:
> > > > Well the Party is not always wrong. I understand the science enough to
> > > > know that global warming must exist. I think, though, there is good
> > > > reason to believe that the dangers are quite exaggerated by the
> > > > warming promoters. Finally I don't get what the existence of God has
> > > > to do with it.
>
> > > The marxists have set things up so that it is the pagans (science) vs
> > > the Christians. Science didn't have to be dragged into this thing but
> > > for marxists to gain more power they thought it expedient to do so.
>
> > Into what? I don't think religion says anything about global warming.
>
> You need to study some theology and some history too. None of this is
> new...it all started with the Enlightenment and has been pretty
> consistent since.
yes, the "Enlightenment" and the resultant french and u.s.
"revolutions" made sure that scientific rationalism developed as an
opponent of God
and that the western world developed as matriarchies, also in
opposition to God
the Enlightenment and the "revolutions" were stage-managed by masonic
fraternities -- the same groups still running the show today
fascinating and v telling tidbit
little wonder that there has been few or no real breakthroughs in
science in the last thirty years, while the west has been under the
boot of matriarchy
feminism and political correctness truly are a pathological virus --
they infest and co-op everything they come into contact with,
destroying the host -- whether it is academic institutions, the
churches, or science/technology in general
a Woman Studies gulagee presiding over the Nanotech Dept!
LOL truly the height of fem-stupidity and arrogance
man, if western people were as passionate about serving God as they
are about serving their fem/PC religion, this planet's problems would
be over in a week
well, so much for any tech advances coming from UCSB . . . guess the
feminist administration thought that Nanotechnology and NannyState
meant the same thing
:O)
they must have been eddicated in feminist language departments too!
> They are even taking over
> the techies! I listen to tech podcasts and the men doing them are
> forced to have women on their programs. Those women are good looking
> and take things over and are totally indebted to the feminists.
>
> > > Have you been on campus lately Andrew? Just looking at the posters
> > > and activities makes it clear the marxists rule the place. I even
> > > checked out podcasts of courses at allegedly conservative Stanford and
> > > they reek of marxist propaganda
>
> > No doubt, this isn't new.
>
> True, but it has become more radical compared to past decades and more
> thorough.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> > Andrew Usher- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Masculist
Like you said, their goal is to destroy and take over, not to build
and cooperate.
> feminism and political correctness truly are a pathological virus --
> they infest and co-op everything they come into contact with,
> destroying the host -- whether it is academic institutions, the
> churches, or science/technology in general
>
> a Woman Studies gulagee presiding over the Nanotech Dept!
>
> LOL truly the height of fem-stupidity and arrogance
You know what the deal probably was between the feminist government
and feminist academy admin? We'll build your Nanotech building and
program but in return we run things for our benefit. Yeah, scinece
departments are now shit and the young men see what is happening and
turning back. The ones there gave up long ago and are just biding
their time to make as much money as they can.
> man, if western people were as passionate about serving God as they
> are about serving their fem/PC religion, this planet's problems would
> be over in a week
You noticed that too eh? When I first got on the net and started
talking to varieties of religious people and guess what they were most
passionate about? Defending feminism from my attacks. God was a
decoration to validate their sense of goodness in themselves. Man
were they vicious too.
> well, so much for any tech advances coming from UCSB . . . guess the
> feminist administration thought that Nanotechnology and NannyState
> meant the same thing
>
> :O)
Ha! The truth is they don't give a shit. Like I said, they all gave
up long ago and as you have noticed, it shows from the lack of any big
discoveries. I'm just glad that the techies of the Sevenites were
still in gear so we can talk like this. It's the net that may make
the difference. BTW, I'm watching first hand with tech podcasts how
the feminists are taking them over too. Poor pussy techies. It
really is sad. Leo Laporte, the leading one, is slowly being
marginalized by those feminist assholes and he's totally helpless and
ignorant of it.
> they must have been eddicated in feminist language departments too!
Oh, you mean the public school systems and academy? You can't take
basket weaving in any of those places without being thoroughly tested
in PC feminism.
Tom
Andrew Usher
> > > The marxists have set things up so that it is the pagans (science) vs
> > > the Christians. Science didn't have to be dragged into this thing but
> > > for marxists to gain more power they thought it expedient to do so.
>
> > Into what? I don't think religion says anything about global warming.
>
> You need to study some theology and some history too. None of this is
> new...it all started with the Enlightenment and has been pretty
> consistent since. Marxism is actually a pagan religion and sees
> itself in competition with the Catholic Church...or any Church for
> that matter. This became more overt when the Left began to embrace
> feminism for real starting in the Sixites though it really started
> with FDR. Before that the Dems were actually conservative Christians
> and the marxists just a interest group on the Left.
I must admit I don't share your conspiracy theories.
> > Now, if people because of religion believe that men can't possibly be
> > damaging the earth, then it is relevant.
>
> I never heard that but I have heard recently Pelosi saying at the
> Climate Change summit, "Climate Change is a women's issue". Does that
> clinch it for you Andrew?
No. Although one may hear statements like that, it doesn't imply that
feminism is behind the global warming agenda.
> > > The marxists cut their teeth coopting and politicizing the American
> > > Academy first in the social sciences. Now they are well along in
> > > taking over the phisical sciences. Feminism BTW, is their most
> > > effective tool in doing so.
>
> > I don't see how feminism applies to the physical sciences. Espeically,
> > the global warming debate seems to have no mention of feminism.
>
> Ha, ha, ha, if the feminists can fool you just think how easy it is
> for them to fool anyone else! Man, you have huge holes in your
> knowledge of how politics works, especially vis a vis feminism.
They haven't fooled me. I'm just distinguishing science as an
_institution_ (which is affected by feminism and other political
things) from science as an intellectual endeavor (which nearly isn't).
The results published in the physical sciences are mostly not
questionable on political grounds - here there is a difference from
the softer sciences.
> The feminists took over the social sciences by the Sixties and with
> the takeover the Left in '72 it was a done deal. How did they take it
> over? PC is powerful with those pussy intellectuals plus more women
> were being hired than men. Government grants....ever heard of them?
> That is another way they keep people in line.
Yes, agreed.
> Now the feminists have huge control in the academy thanks to
> feminism. They can get their people hired anywhere in the academy
> through their influence. Dig this, at UCSB they have a huge new Nano
> Technology program and guess who was put in charge of it? A Feminist
> Studies professor! Just think how she can influence the scientists
> working under her and get her people hired. That's how Andrew and it
> is pretty much a done deal in the sciences. They are even taking over
> the techies! I listen to tech podcasts and the men doing them are
> forced to have women on their programs. Those women are good looking
> and take things over and are totally indebted to the feminists.
You know, I just had to look up the term 'podcast' - strange word
origin to be sure. Where do you listen to things like this?
I don't understand that UCSB (does that mean Berkeley?) decision; I
can't believe they could hire anyone but a scientist or engineer for
that position.
You're right about women dominating the media - wherever they're
allowed, they tend to take over. I think that a significant part of
the reason is that most men are overly impressed by good-looking women
and attribute to them a relatively higher degree of expertise. Palin
was an extreme example!
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> yes, the "Enlightenment" and the resultant french and u.s.
> "revolutions" made sure that scientific rationalism developed as an
> opponent of God
Yes. But the Enlightment was definitely not feminist.
> and that the western world developed as matriarchies, also in
> opposition to God
>
> the Enlightenment and the "revolutions" were stage-managed by masonic
> fraternities -- the same groups still running the show today
Bull. There is no Masonic conspiracy!
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > man, if western people were as passionate about serving God as they
> > are about serving their fem/PC religion, this planet's problems would
> > be over in a week
>
> You noticed that too eh? When I first got on the net and started
> talking to varieties of religious people and guess what they were most
> passionate about? Defending feminism from my attacks. God was a
> decoration to validate their sense of goodness in themselves. Man
> were they vicious too.
Shouldn't that cause you to have less confidence in religion? 'Serving
God' is mostly a mirror of one's own emotional reactions and does not
by itself solve any social problems.
Andrew Usher
retardsman
youre running four or five centuries behind times, so full of the
arrogance of your own "intellect" that youre unable to actually learn
anything
retardsman
you, andrew usher, are an excellent example of "a mirror of one's own
emotional reactions"
not to mention One's Own Emotional Hubris
god, otoh, isnt
Andrew Usher
> youre running four or five centuries behind times, so full of the
> arrogance of your own "intellect" that youre unable to actually learn
> anything
You know, if you want to be taken seriously, you could try using
capitalisation and not including the word 'retard' in your handle.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> you, andrew usher, are an excellent example of "a mirror of one's own
> emotional reactions"
>
> not to mention One's Own Emotional Hubris
>
> god, otoh, isnt
Whatever.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
Yeah ray, buck up and get control of things like Andrew...ha, ha, ha!
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
I'm just saying that there's no reason to assign any credibility to
his claims about me.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
Please try to do it in a nicer way. Ray has been at this for many
decades and knows his stuff plus he's very talented.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > > Yeah ray, buck up and get control of things like Andrew...ha, ha, ha!
> >
> > I'm just saying that there's no reason to assign any credibility to
> > his claims about me.
>
> Please try to do it in a nicer way. Ray has been at this for many
> decades and knows his stuff plus he's very talented.
I don't know that, and more pertinently, most of our potential
audience doesn't. I attempt to make all my stuff possibly convincing
to any man that's not already familiar with the men's movement.
If he wants to convince me (or any reader) that he's 'very talented',
then he needs to prove it. No one (including me) is _automatically_
entitled to respect.
Andrew Usher