SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,066
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Theresa May
- Thread starter bluethrunthru
- Start date
malg
Well-Known Member
Fair one. Probably more interesting than talking about Theresa May.You can’t get cross as us going off on a tangent.
It was always going to happen.
FantasyIreland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 64,697
You can’t get cross as us going off on a tangent.
Nailed it.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 18,299
It is, but you injected societal issues. I was just talking MATHS.True.
And the longer you take to reduce the deficit the larger the national debt becomes. So if you promise to do it in five but it takes ten then you have a problem.
Also if you reduce the deficit by focussing your cuts on one particular section of society ( the less well off,disabled etc) whilst at the same time reducing taxes on business then you create problems in society.
So it's not quite as simple as your mathematical model.
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
It’s not science. It’s one very much unproven theory and it’s not mainstream.
Not only is it part of science, it is the logical conclusion to fundamental scientific theory. All other scientific theories feed into a theory of everything - the idea that the laws (or a single law) of the universe determine the choices that explain all phenomena in the universe including the choices that humans make (some might say already arguably the logical conclusion to GR). While you might be right to say that it's yet to be 'proven', - and while there are issues with it as @chippyboy already mentioned, that's not to say there won't ever be a theory that unifies QM and GR and that's not to say that many scientific observations or laws already theorised by geneticists, physicists and even behavioural economists don't do a far better job of explaining human behaviour and are much more scientifically valid than the idea of free-will, God or 'hard-work' or anything else it can be called.
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
Surely it's closer to belief in a deity if you think that everything is preordained?
Not really plus the term preordained is suggestive of divine or human motive/free-will, which is the polar opposite of what I am arguing. All religions that believe in deities (as far as I know) believe that humans were endowed with free-will by relevant god/gods, and that evil is sometimes a consequence of free-will hence why they have to follow laws or commandments laid down by gods and/or prophets. Your argument is very similar to a theological one.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 89,066
As I say. It’s one very much unproven theory and it’s not mainstream.Not only is it part of science, it is the logical conclusion to fundamental scientific theory. All other scientific theories feed into a theory of everything - the idea that the laws (or a single law) of the universe determine the choices that explain all phenomena in the universe including the choices that humans make (some might say already arguably the logical conclusion to GR). While you might be right to say that it's yet to be 'proven', - and while there are issues with it as @chippyboy already mentioned, that's not to say there won't ever be a theory that unifies QM and GR and that's not to say that many scientific observations or laws already theorised by geneticists, physicists and even behavioural economists don't do a far better job of explaining human behaviour and are much more scientifically valid than the idea of free-will, God or 'hard-work' or anything else it can be called.
Let’s leave it there.
Not really plus the term preordained is suggestive of divine or human motive/free-will, which is the polar opposite of what I am arguing. All religions that believe in deities (as far as I know) believe that humans were endowed with free-will by relevant god/gods, and that evil is sometimes a consequence of free-will hence why they have to follow laws or commandments laid down by gods and/or prophets. Your argument is very similar to a theological one.
I'm thinking from a more probabilistic point of view. That every event has a chance of happening that is equal to the union of all preceding (relevant) events happening.
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
As I say. It’s one very much unproven theory and it’s not mainstream.
Let’s leave it there.
I would disagree about mainstream but fair enough.