Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Shepard Fairey: Obama Skeptics Suffering from False Consciousness
At long last, Shepard Fairey, the "street artist" behind the Obama "hope" campaign (who, on the side, designs logos for Mountain Dew and brings Rodchenko-inspired Soviet constructivism to Saks Fifth Avenue) has weighed in on the Obama-as-Joker poster controversy:
"I have my doubts about the person's intelligence," Fairey said on the phone from Pittsburgh. "It's not grammatically correct. It would be 'socialist' ... Obama is not Marx. He didn't create socialism."
Fairey, professional Obama hagiographer and arbiter of what counts as intelligent political discourse, might want to look into Robert Owen and the early socialists that predated Marx. And as the Los Angeles Times slyly notes, this is a matter of semantics not grammar—and his point still makes no sense. But I pick nits:
"A lot of these things are fueled by frustration," Fairey said. "Maybe they're frustrated and don't understand the whole situation."
But who is Fairey to criticize the nefarious Obama poster when he himself is responsible for numerous artworks that ...painted President Bush as the villain? "My frustration with Bush was fueled by a very clear understanding of what's going on," he asserted.
Got that? If you don't support Obama, you must be a frustrated, confused halfwit who doesn't quite understand why the government would give Americans $4500 for a 2004 Dodge Dakota. As an amateur scholar of Marxism who has a pretty clear understanding of "what's going on," Fairey is doubtless referencing Engels' idea of "false consciousness," but presumes us Obama skeptics are too thick for such profundities.
I wrote about the future of political art in the age of Obama here.
|8.11.09 @ 12:20PM|#
"It's not grammatically correct. It would be
'socialist'
Fairey is apparently too stupid to see that using "Socialism"
instead of "Socialist" is a much more intelligent choice of
caption.
Rather than trivially labelling Obama as a socialist, the artist is
presenting Obama-as-Joker as the face of socialism. The seeming
disconnects in the poster, between the caption and the picture, and
between Obama and the Joker, actually arrest the viewers attention
and provoke thought.
But I wouldn't expect someone who works mostly with mass product
labelling (Mountain Dew, Obama) to have much of interest to offer
on something like this.
Kyle Jordan|8.11.09 @ 12:21PM|#
"My frustration with Bush was fueled by a very clear
understanding of what's going on," he asserted."
And my frustration with your Messiah is fueled by a very clear
understanding of what's going on, you elitist cunt.
Mike in PA|8.11.09 @ 12:23PM|#
...but presumes us Obama skeptics are too
thick for such profundities.
Uh oh... Better hope the grammar police don't catch that one.
hmm|8.11.09 @ 12:28PM|#
It's the same mentality listed Matt Welch talked about below. Being an older guy who is back in school I see it all the time, "you just don't understand, you are just too stupid, you are blinded by the politics (my favorite), and even one racist accusation." It's a standard place and tactic from which many argue Obama's policy. If you watch the talking heads you see the same tactic at its most refined level.
hmm|8.11.09 @ 12:29PM|#
*the "listed" in the post above is part of a discussion with my
wife. God I hate talking and typing.
Life with a half track mind.
Wicks Cherrycoke|8.11.09 @ 12:30PM|#
If Fairey is upset by the Obama Socialism poster, he'd really be
annoyed by the T-shirt being advertised on the right side of this
web page (the word Obama, in red, under a hammer and sickle).
A "street artist" who moonlights for Saks Fifth Avenue. Good
grief.
mark|8.11.09 @ 12:31PM|#
This is proof that controversial, challenging, socially transgressive art can be made WITHOUT NEA funding.
Dello|8.11.09 @ 12:32PM|#
"If you don't support Obama, you must be a frustrated, confused
halfwit who doesn't quite understand why the government would give
Americans $4500 for a 2004 Dodge Dakota."
Um, actually that should be: "Why would Americans sell their 2004
Dodge Dakota to the government for only $4,500, when the going
market rate is about $9,000?"
|8.11.09 @ 12:34PM|#
A "street artist" who moonlights for Saks Fifth Avenue. Good
grief.
Hey, come on. At least he doesn't work for Barney's.
Kyle Jordan|8.11.09 @ 12:35PM|#
"It's the same mentality listed Matt Welch talked about below.
Being an older guy who is back in school I see it all the time,
"you just don't understand, you are just too stupid, you are
blinded by the politics (my favorite), and even one racist
accusation." It's a standard place and tactic from which many argue
Obama's policy. If you watch the talking heads you see the same
tactic at its most refined level."
Kudos to you friend. When I was finishing up school recently I
basically just stopped talking to people. Even having to listen to
it directed at others was infuriating because the accusations are
so damn close minded and people are just completely oblivious to
it.
|8.11.09 @ 12:36PM|#
Fairey is an artistic hack who has never had an ounce of originality. It's hard to believe this guy is in his forties and spouts off like an ignorant college student.
!</ </a>|8.11.09 @ 12:37PM|#
If Fairey is upset by the Obama Socialism poster, he'd
really be annoyed by the T-shirt being advertised on the right side
of this web page (the word Obama, in red, under a hammer and
sickle).
I love that ad and hope it stays when I refresh the page.
|8.11.09 @ 12:42PM|#
I love elitist partisan twits like Fairey. They are So. Fucking. Dense., so above it all, so enamored with their ideology and worst of all, they think they *way* smarter than they actually are.
|8.11.09 @ 12:43PM|#
To be honest I prefer Fairly's criticism then the knee jerk "its racist"response.
|8.11.09 @ 12:44PM|#
From the LA Times blog comment rules:
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message
board, but you may not participate.
And get off our collective lawns.
Kevin|8.11.09 @ 12:55PM|#
This is proof that controversial, challenging, socially
transgressive art can be made WITHOUT NEA funding.
It's not art unless the NEA funded it. Just like black people can't
succeed without the help of someone with a "D" after their name.
Same stupid mentality.
Warty|8.11.09 @ 1:00PM|#
Holy shit. The Saks Fifth Avenue thing is the dumbest thing I've seen all day.
|8.11.09 @ 1:00PM|#
I love elitist partisan twits like Fairey. They are So.
Fucking. Dense., so above it all, so enamored with their ideology
and worst of all, they think they *way* smarter than they actually
are.
I have to admit, I think I fit the mold, I'm just reason's
kind of asshole.
|8.11.09 @ 1:01PM|#
I love it when people throw down the "I'm the only one in this conversation who *really* understands the subject at hand!" card.
|8.11.09 @ 1:01PM|#
Shephard Fairey (who, for the record, I loathe) didn't say
anything like "If you don't support Obama, you must be a
frustrated, confused halfwit. . ." Speculating on the motivation
for the Obama Joker poster, he says "A lot of these things are
fueled by frustration," Fairey said. "Maybe they're frustrated and
don't understand the whole situation." In general, his entire
position is much more nuanced then you give him credit for--he goes
so far as to trash his own poster of Bush as a vampire.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Moynihan can create a post
that goads me into supporting an artist I think makes a living off
of stealing ideas from others. I often find his writing reveals
nothing except his own jejune insight into current events.
Elemenope|8.11.09 @ 1:08PM|#
I still hold that the Joker poster is stupid, but color me shocked that there's a guy in the sociopolitical scene who is arrogant, condescending and harbors double standards. That's (present company partially excepted) what the general commentariat is, especially the professionals: they are *paid* to have a provocative, obtuse opinion about everything under the sun.
<strike>strike through</strike|8.11.09 @ 1:11PM|#
Quiet! Our Leader is making a campaign, er, healthcare speech!
|8.11.09 @ 1:19PM|#
is an artistic hack who has never had an ounce of
originality. It's hard to believe this guy is in his forties and
spouts off like an ignorant college student.
Actually, I enjoyed the cool work he did with the Obama poster and
the Saks 5th stuff. He has talent. It's just that he opens his
mouth and speaks occasionally, revealing himself to be an arrogant
twit with a serious case of statist worship.
Anomalous|8.11.09 @ 1:21PM|#
And now you can't call Obama a socialist because that's code for the N-word doncha know. All I can say to that is, socialist please!
|8.11.09 @ 1:24PM|#
Er, parse, I think its a tendentious but be no means
out-of-bounds to paraphrase:
A lot of these things are fueled by frustration," Fairey said.
"Maybe they're frustrated and don't understand the whole
situation.
as
If you don't support Obama, you must be a frustrated, confused
halfwit .
The frustration carries straight over. The "don't understand the
whole situation" carries over as "confused halfwit".
|8.11.09 @ 1:25PM|#
The Joker poster didn't impress me that much to begin with, but
the reaction it got out of the left was so wrath-of-God out of
proportion to the reaction it should have generated that I have a
new found respect for the work.
Obama as the face of socialism makes perfect sense to me, because
there's more than a little truth to it. What was weak about the
poster, of course, was the Joker image, which is more about chaos
and nihilism. For our token leftists, be happy that this new icon
isn't of something worse, like Stalin or Hitler.
24AheadDotCom|8.11.09 @ 1:26PM|#
~~~~~ KOCHTOPUS ALERT UE-7201 ~~~~~
This alert is issued to remind you that
Shepard Fairey is a Friend of the Movement. Please immediately
correct this post to reflect the newtruth.
- 23
William|8.11.09 @ 1:26PM|#
Let's not forget the brain-dead folks who have never had a thought that deviates from libertarian dogma. Nothing personal, Michael, but if the blinkers fit...
|8.11.09 @ 1:29PM|#
"The Joker poster didn't impress me that much to begin with, but
the reaction it got out of the left was so wrath-of-God out of
proportion to the reaction it should have generated that I have a
new found respect for the work."
Exactly. The poster was very forgetable and not that creative. But,
the response to it made it better and more important than it should
have been. The response took a below average political poster and
turned it into first rate subversive art.
|8.11.09 @ 1:31PM|#
The Troll With A Thousand Names has chastised us! Oh, surely have been chastoozed!
|8.11.09 @ 1:35PM|#
This thread
24AheadDotCom | August 11, 2009, 1:26pm | #
William | August 11, 2009, 1:26pm | #
Senior Mob Thread
William | August 11, 2009, 1:29pm | #
24AheadDotCom | August 11, 2009, 1:31pm | #
There is no such thing as coincidence.
NaturalLawGunNut|8.11.09 @ 1:36PM|#
Fairy's Stalinist "Hope" poster is about the most socialistic looking political poster I've seen. I thought that was fairly obvious. I don't understand the press this Joker poster is getting.
wheelock|8.11.09 @ 1:38PM|#
The joker poster indeed makes no sense... the reference is lost on me. However this post gives me the thought that a much more effective campaign would be to take what Fairey has done and take it to the next level. Take Russian constructivism and socialist realism and frame our countries current trend towards those models in that light. i.e.: "Report those spreading lies!" and provide the whitehouse "flag" email address... Make over the top chinese style socialist realism pieces with the multitudes of happy workers standing behind the great leader etc... That would be a much more clever and interesting way to make people think about where we are going. If done properly people wouldn't quite be able to make out whether the poster was in protest or support... which would make them pretty freaky and thought provoking IMO. Too bad I'm so busy making a living to be a "street artist"... Any talented art students out there that aren't knee-jerk leftists? ( crickets... )
|8.11.09 @ 1:38PM|#
I've found much of the iconography of the administration (and the preceding campaign) to have a socialist flavor to it. But there's a lot of overlap among the statists--Bush probably had some of his own.
|8.11.09 @ 1:45PM|#
Incidentally, I found an actual depiction of Obama as an ape in
a search for this week's Monkey Tuesday posting. I think, perhaps,
that might actually be racist, and I decided against posting
it--even with liberal (in the nonpolitical sense) disclaimers--to
save joe from having a coronary.
I learned a new word, too: "Singerie" (about which
I posted) Monkey Tuesday has proven very educational.
highnumber|8.11.09 @ 1:46PM|#
For our token leftists, be happy that this new icon isn't of
something worse, like Stalin or Hitler.
ProGLib,
The LaRouchies were outside my office 2-3 weeks ago with posters
featuring Obama with a Hitler 'stache. Caption was something like
"I've changed."
|8.11.09 @ 1:49PM|#
I love the people who are part of the art scene but insist on
critiquing art cerebrally -- e.g.: the Joker poster is bad because
the Joker is anarchist/nihilist - everyone knows that The KGBeast
is Gotham's socialist; the Joker poster is bad because it should
have read "socialist," not "socialism", etc.
I go back to my analysis a few threads back. IMHO, it's pretty good
as street art. (1) Seen on the street, it grabs your attention
immediately, (2) it's instantly accessable, and (3) it challenges
you to form connections between three juxtaposed concepts - Obama,
the Joker, and socialism.
It's not complex or cerebral, but so what - it's street art. It's
engaging, it's challenging, and it achieves it's purpose, so far as
I can tell.
|8.11.09 @ 1:51PM|#
The Saks add campaign is outright offensive. That artistic style, totalitarian kitsch or social realism, is associated with some of the worst crimes in history. Taking it and using it for an ad campaign is no better than wearing a Che shirt. What a fuckhead.
|8.11.09 @ 1:53PM|#
"It's not complex or cerebral, but so what - it's street art.
It's engaging, it's challenging, and it achieves it's purpose, so
far as I can tell."
But you are not supposed to use street art for the purpose of
criticzing the messiah. Street art is for the people man. Don't you
know that?
And yes, judged by the standards of street art it was highly
effective. Any street art than can generate this kind of response
is by definition a success.
|8.11.09 @ 1:54PM|#
The LaRouchies were outside my office 2-3 weeks ago with
posters featuring Obama with a Hitler 'stache. Caption was
something like "I've changed."
Sci-Fi themed thread jack!
I learned recently, that the actor who played the annoying
character "Chakotay" in that insult to Star Trek,
Voyager, is a LaRouchite.
|8.11.09 @ 1:56PM|#
"A lot of these things are fueled by frustration," Fairey
said. "Maybe they're frustrated and don't understand the whole
situation."
But who is Fairey to criticize the nefarious Obama poster when he
himself is responsible for numerous artworks that ...painted
President Bush as the villain? "My frustration with Bush was fueled
by a very clear understanding of what's going on," he
asserted.
Oh c'mon parse. You can't hear the sniffing and hanky waving in
that passage?
He's a no talent, plagiarist hack, who thinks he's now among the
cultural elite and lecturing his lessers about how wrong they are
about what they think. I mean, fuck, he's regurgitated Warhol
without the charm and warmth.
|8.11.09 @ 1:56PM|#
highnumber,
That's my point. Every president will get some crappy images
associated with him, but the ones that become icons are the ones to
worry about. In this case, the Joker image may have some
legs.
Until Urkobold comes up with something more offensive yet
impossible to look away from ☺
Agent Cooper,
And without Jeri Ryan, no Obama. Coincidence?
|8.11.09 @ 1:58PM|#
"I mean, fuck, he's regurgitated Warhol without the charm and
warmth."
Exactly. Warhol devoid of all human warmth and made into something
inhuman and creepy. That is social realism. People are never
personalized. They are just machines in service of the larger goal.
If Fairey knew anything, he would know how awful that is and the
horrible ideas it represents.
|8.11.09 @ 2:00PM|#
Parse:
nuanced? when he says "it was one dimensional" oh yes that's so
nuanced, but has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, since
he does not say he was "confused" about the issues, he just regrets
making such a snarky poster.
The discussion at hand is he says people who disagree with Obama
are "confused", but he had a "very clear understanding" whether he
regrets the painting or not, he knows his motivation was higher,
his understanding of the issues better.
You can't get more black and white than that.
|8.11.09 @ 2:01PM|#
The LaRouchies were outside my office 2-3 weeks ago with
posters featuring Obama with a Hitler 'stache. Caption was
something like "I've changed."
The Larouchies are at this intersection near my house every
Saturday, walking up and down the median with their sandwich boards
and pamphlets.
It at the entrance to a fairly low-income apartment
mega-development, so I guess they think that once they read their
very informative pamphlet, the seething masses of the downtrodden
will latch onto their revolutionary agenda and not ride the
entitlement gravy train.
Good luck with that.
|8.11.09 @ 2:04PM|#
And without Jeri Ryan, no Obama. Coincidence?
Obviously not. Perhaps the Urkobold needs to conduct an
investigation into the shady links between LaRouche, Obama, and the
Queen of England.
|8.11.09 @ 2:07PM|#
I am one of the very few current people in the fine art business, part of a vanguard of conservative Libertarian constitutionalists (there are approximately three of us in this vanguard!); there is a term we use daily to describe these wayward, emasculated, culturally-arrogant artists, which so readily describes Mr. Shepard Fairey, we call them "art fags." Go Figure...
|8.11.09 @ 2:09PM|#
The link above about Fairey being a plagerist is really good. What a piece of shit.
|8.11.09 @ 2:10PM|#
Stephen Hawking was on Star Trek once, and he's
English, like the Queen. He holds the Lucasian Professor of
Mathematics chair at Cambridge, like noted alchemist Isaac Newton.
There's also reason to believe that a love/sex triangle once
existed among Hawking, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and Ryan. What does
this all mean?
Seek the truth in Principia! In Principia! In. .
. .
|8.11.09 @ 2:14PM|#
A "street artist" who moonlights for Saks Fifth Avenue. Good
grief.
Well, an avenue is a type of street, I guess.
Got that? If you don't support Obama, you must be a frustrated,
confused halfwit
I don't see how that follows from Fairey's words. Unless you assume
that everyone who doesn't support Obama had a hand in creating the
poster.
|8.11.09 @ 2:16PM|#
The Hawkman would school your ass, John, if you dared to engage in physicisticuffs with him.
|8.11.09 @ 2:17PM|#
"A lot of these things are fueled by frustration," Fairey said.
"Maybe they're frustrated and don't understand the whole
situation."
Ethen,
He says "A lot of these things" not "this thing" are fueled by
frustraition. He is not talking about just the poster. He is
talking about something larger, presumably all or most criticism of
Obama.
Elemenope|8.11.09 @ 2:19PM|#
And without Jeri Ryan, no Obama. Coincidence?
See, now, a BorgObama poster would have worked a lot better.
|8.11.09 @ 2:20PM|#
Real simple pro, I would just him to please explain what the fuck "imaginary time is"? And then watch him stumble for an answer. Brief History of Time makes no sense. It is just 200 or so pages of trying to avoid the obvious "that the universe began in a singular point of creation and that (gasp) that is consistent with their being a creator". That is all the book is.
|8.11.09 @ 2:23PM|#
The parking ticket machine in my building's garage uses Hawking's electronic voice for feedback and instructions. I wonder what he gets in royalties from that?
|8.11.09 @ 2:23PM|#
John,
A Brief History of Time is the cipher for the
Principia. Study these books, and the wisdom of alchemy
shall be yours!
My contacts in the physicist world generally say that Hawking's
work (not his popularizations, mind you) has been important but
that he is popular for reasons other than his work. It's incredible
that the man is even alive.
|8.11.09 @ 2:25PM|#
JW,
I used to have a voice synthesizer that had the "Hawking voice" as
an option. I sent a few sound files to people congratulating them
on birthdays, etc. in the Hawking voice.
|8.11.09 @ 2:31PM|#
Dr. Girlfriend: Hey, is that the guy from Depeche Mode?
Monarch: It is the guy from Depeche Mode. He's with a woman?
Dr. Girlfriend: Oh yeah, he's totally straight. I saw a story about
him on the VH-1.
Monarch: But he's the guy from Depeche Mode!
Fist of Etiquette|8.11.09 @ 2:33PM|#
Since it has no discernible style, it could just as easily
be the work of a kid with a pirated copy of Photoshop...
No one actually buys Photoshop, not even confused young
Capitalists. Anyway, it was obviously the work of the CIA.
Warty|8.11.09 @ 2:33PM|#
"that the universe began in a singular point of creation and
that (gasp) that is consistent with their being a
creator".
And is also consistent with there not being a creator.
Bingo|8.11.09 @ 2:33PM|#
It's really amusing that Shephard Fairy, who created
faux-soviet-propaganda street art ("the medium is the message")
went on to create the iconic representation of a politician.
Would that be considered selling out or is Stockholm Syndrome more
appropriate?
|8.11.09 @ 2:35PM|#
"My contacts in the physicist world generally say that Hawking's
work (not his popularizations, mind you) has been important but
that he is popular for reasons other than his work. It's incredible
that the man is even alive."
He is a very brilliant guy. He has done a lot of important work. It
is amazing he is still alive letalone productive. I guess my
problem is the hype. It is not that he is not important. It is that
his hype makes him out to be one of the most important physicists
of all time. I just can't go that far. I would say he is in the
third rung, which the first rung being people like Newton,
Einstein, Heisenberg, and Maxwell and the second being people like
Durac and Feynman and Teller and the like. I would put him just a
notch below those guys. Still amazing yes. But not quite the
hype.
Ska|8.11.09 @ 2:36PM|#
I never realized how easy it is to hear Dr. GF's and the Monarch's voices when reading their dialogue.
|8.11.09 @ 2:36PM|#
"that the universe began in a singular point of creation and
that (gasp) that is consistent with their being a creator".
And is also consistent with there not being a creator."
No doubt. It can go either way.
Xeones|8.11.09 @ 2:38PM|#
No doubt. It can go either way.
No, there is doubt, that's the point. ZING
hmm|8.11.09 @ 2:41PM|#
SugarFree | August 11, 2009, 1:35pm | #
This thread
24AheadDotCom | August 11, 2009, 1:26pm | #
William | August 11, 2009, 1:26pm | #
Senior Mob Thread
William | August 11, 2009, 1:29pm | #
24AheadDotCom | August 11, 2009, 1:31pm | #
There is no such thing as coincidence.
Can we get an IP check on aisle 4. IP check aisle 4.
|8.11.09 @ 2:42PM|#
In physics, you're not going to get the long-term love unless
you do something spectacular. Right now, major breakthroughs are
harder, though I'm sure we'll be having them in the future. Maybe
not even that distant.
Not that Hawking is the King of Physics, but even if he were, it's
possible to be overhyped. Michael Jordan was overhyped, even though
he was definitely a great player. There's a long list of greats who
weren't as great as advertised and/or weren't "the best."
|8.11.09 @ 2:43PM|#
"Taking it and using it for an ad campaign is no better than
wearing a Che shirt"
Perhaps the Jocker as Obama poster would have been better were the
caption "Che".
mr simple|8.11.09 @ 2:44PM|#
Stephen Hawking was on Star Trek once, and he's
English
Funny, he doesn't have an English accent.
|8.11.09 @ 2:48PM|#
"In physics, you're not going to get the long-term love unless
you do something spectacular. Right now, major breakthroughs are
harder, though I'm sure we'll be having them in the future. Maybe
not even that distant."
I think we will on the practical engineering end. We will be
getting lots of gee whiz techonology. But on the theoretical end, I
think we are running up against the limits of our ability to
explain the universe in rational terms. It just is what it is at
this point. It has gotten to the point that our attempts to explain
the wierd results that we get (things like the multiverse and
string theory) are just flights of fancy and not really
science.
Enyap|8.11.09 @ 3:03PM|#
Why am I not surprised someone who did work for the obama campaign has experience promoting bottle cat piss, aka Mountain Dew.
D.D. Driver|8.11.09 @ 3:03PM|#
Obama didn't create "socialism," you dummies.
He created "hope."
The poster is a parody of the Fairey "hope" poster, and that's why
"socialism" makes much more sense than "socialist."
If Fairey's posters would have had the caption "Hopeful" instead of
"Hope" then undoubtedly the Joker poster would have said
"Socialist" instead of "Socialism."
|8.11.09 @ 3:07PM|#
That is a great point DD Driver. Fairey is such a smug dickhead with the "Obama didn't create socialism" remark. But he is too stupid to realize the same criticism applies to his own fucking poster. Obama didn't create hope. He is just a person. He is hopeful.
|8.11.09 @ 3:10PM|#
Isn't that what EVERYONE believes? That those who disagree do so
only because of ignorance?
Because, after all, if everyone understood libertarianism properly,
then everyone would be a libertarian by the force of logic.
I'm not being sarcastic here; I think it's true. I fault Fairey not
for believing it, but for not realizing that his opponents think
exactly the same thing.
"My opponents are ignorant" is exactly as useful an argument as "my
opponents are wrong."
hmm|8.11.09 @ 3:11PM|#
Kudos to you friend. When I was finishing up school recently I basically just stopped talking to people. Even having to listen to it directed at others was infuriating because the accusations are so damn close minded and people are just completely oblivious to it.
I take the opposite approach. Everyone on the faculty knows me. I
was pretty well known among the faculty in a few schools before
this, but after this little incident which pissed me off beyond
belief everyone knows me. =)
The initial email and my response for an internship possibility.
The bold and the last sentence being the more relevant parts since
it may lead to an actual job.
The absolute amazing response to my criticism, totally missed the
point, and my follow up.
I made sure all of this went to every dean of every collage, and
every head faculty member within the business school. I guess this
can serve as proof that I'm as big an asshole in real life as I am
online, if anyone questioned such a thing.
hmm|8.11.09 @ 3:13PM|#
*bit of a thread hijack, but since someone responded I figured I would share that little slice of stupid.
|8.11.09 @ 3:16PM|#
"that the universe began in a singular point of creation and that (gasp) that is consistent with their being a creator".
And is also consistent with there not being a creator."
No doubt. It can go either way.
Nope, not if you mean both are equally likely. Parsimony requires
that we exclude explanations that add complexity not necessary to
explain observations, and that have no evidence for them.
ObamaStalinHitler|8.11.09 @ 3:18PM|#
Hey ProLib, you don't have to look very hard for images of the ObamaStalin; there were plenty ObamaStalin, EngelsMarxStalinObama images around last fall. Too bad the lamestream media didn't pick up on them.
|8.11.09 @ 3:19PM|#
"Parsimony requires that we exclude explanations that add
complexity not necessary to explain observations, and that have no
evidence for them."
Anything beyond "it just happened and we don't know why or how"
adds complexity. Whether that be "God did it" or "a multiverse of
universes bubbled up each with a random set of physcal laws and we
happen to by necessity live in the one with the set of laws that
allows for intelligent life" really doesn't matter. I will leave it
to you to decide which of those explanations adds the most
complexity.
MattXIV|8.11.09 @ 3:25PM|#
Fairey's Obey stuff is very similar to the Joker poster in that it gives the superficial appearance of having some coherent theme once the symbolism is unpacked, but upon analysis it reveals itself to be no more than a haphazard combination of cultural references chosen for their ability to grab the eye rather than meaning.
|8.11.09 @ 3:25PM|#
The initial email and my response for an internship
possibility...
Good stuff, hmm.
Fluffy|8.11.09 @ 3:26PM|#
I think we will on the practical engineering end. We will be
getting lots of gee whiz techonology. But on the theoretical end, I
think we are running up against the limits of our ability to
explain the universe in rational terms. It just is what it is at
this point. It has gotten to the point that our attempts to explain
the wierd results that we get (things like the multiverse and
string theory) are just flights of fancy and not really
science.
In the history of science, this state of affairs is associated with
theoretical models that are about to die.
What happens is you get an innovator who proposes a model that
appears to account for all known phenomena. That innovator's work
is built upon by subsequent entrants into his field. Over time,
inconsistencies and bad data start to appear, that require greater
and greater elaboration to reconcile to the original innovative
theory. Finally the situation grows tiresome and some new
innovator comes along and sweeps the whole mess away with a new
model built on an entirely new insight no one had before.
It happened to Ptolemy and it happened to Newton, and it will
happen to Einstein too.
|8.11.09 @ 3:27PM|#
Isn't that what EVERYONE believes? That those who disagree
do so only because of ignorance?
I find that many people who disagree with me do so out of
small-minded envy and malice.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 3:28PM|#
oh Christ, John, Tony just smacked you around. You
should be sufficiently embarrassed. You are really just repeating
the Watchmaker's Fallacy.
Occam's Razor demands that we not multiply entities beyond
necessity.
Xeones|8.11.09 @ 3:30PM|#
I find that many people who disagree with me do so out of
small-minded envy and malice.
When people disagree with me it's because of teh Debbil.
|8.11.09 @ 3:31PM|#
John,
The point is not to add complexity that isn't warranted by
evidence. Whatever 'unviverse' is, it's surely less complex than
'universe + god.'
|8.11.09 @ 3:34PM|#
"The point is not to add complexity that isn't warranted by
evidence. Whatever 'unviverse' is, it's surely less complex than
'universe + god.'"
What evidence is there of that? You just like that answer. It is no
less of a faithful answer than saying there is a God.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 3:35PM|#
"It is readily apparent to the Court that the only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance, i.e. if it looks complex or designed, it must have been designed. This inference to design based upon the appearance of a 'purposeful arrangement of parts' is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system."
That is one of the holdings of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School
District. Written by a conservative, Republican, Bush-appointee.
Sorry, John, but even the government is smart enough to
realize the ID stuff you're peddling is BS.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 3:37PM|#
John! Even logic dictates that you are wrong. I cannot believe
that you are making me side with Tony here.
"Universe + God" is unnecessarily complex. "Universe" will suffice.
Further more, when in doubt, the burden of proof goes to the
asserter of a proposition. You assert the existence of a God, sans
proof.
Dude, Paley got smacked around 150 years ago - you would think you
would learn.
MattXIV|8.11.09 @ 3:38PM|#
Isn't that what EVERYONE believes? That those who disagree do so only because of ignorance?
Because, after all, if everyone understood libertarianism properly, then everyone would be a libertarian by the force of logic.
I don't believe it, but then I think morality is subjective. If you
share my premises but disagree about the conclusions, but.
Ultimately all moral reasoning can be boiled down to extrapolations
from subjective premises - if your premise is that initiating force
is wrong, you're likely to be a libertarian, but if your premise is
that initiating force is an acceptable if it accomplishes certain
ends, you probably won't be. If you think it is morally acceptable
to force your will on others, logic does not lead you to
libertarianism.
|8.11.09 @ 3:40PM|#
He says "A lot of these things" not "this thing" are fueled
by frustraition. He is not talking about just the poster. He is
talking about something larger, presumably all or most criticism of
Obama.
I read "a lot of these things" to mean "things like the poster,"
which seems to be a reading far more fair than "everything that is
critical of Obama." Right? Let's try another example: "A lot of
these letters to the editor misunderstood my column this week."
Does that imply "if you wrote in about my column this week you
misunderstood it"? It doesn't seem to, but according to Mr
Moynihan's logic in this post it does.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 3:40PM|#
I don't believe it, but then I think morality is subjective.
Oh, well, it shouldn't bother you if I come over and burn your
house down, then. After all, appealing to my morality will do you
no good, and your morality is neither true nor false.
Yeesh. you people are killin' me today.
|8.11.09 @ 3:41PM|#
"oh Christ, John, Tony just smacked you around. You should be
sufficiently embarrassed. You are really just repeating the
Watchmaker's Fallacy. "
Oh Christ you don't even know the watchmakers fallacy. If you are
going to be an atheist at least be a good one. You completely
missed the point. Before the advent of the big bang cosmology, it
was taken as a serious point against the existence of God that the
universe was infinite in unchanging. Once, it became apparent that
the universe was neither and in fact began in one instant in one
point, atheists had a problem. You can't exclude the existence of
God if there is one point of creation. You can if the universe is
infinite and unchanging. But you can't if it had a beginning. Since
then, atheists and cosmologists have been scrambling to come up
with increasingly absurd and complex explanation that preclude the
existence of God. In the end, they are just as faith based as any
theistic explanation.
Now, the teleological argument (or the watchmakers fallacy) is not
that argument. The teleological argument is the one that says that
because the universe appears to be a put up job (there are lots and
lots of ways to solve Einstein's field equations and lots of weird
constants that if they were different would preclude the existence
of life) that it must have been designed by God. While an
interesting argument, that is not what I am talking about. What I
am talking about is the fact that the universe had a defined
beginning does not preclude the existence of God despite the best
efforts on the part of atheists to say that it does.
¢|8.11.09 @ 3:41PM|#
I thought the "Hope" on the Fairey poster was a command, like
"Obey" -- a command that presumed "Obey," actually, not
only because "Obey" got Fairey his gigs as court propagandist, but
because giant-dictatorial-head iconography is traditionally
accompanied by text that commands, not describes.
The Joker poster doesn't work in the same brute, ham-handed way,
because it's protest art, and Fairey doesn't know what that looks
like.
|8.11.09 @ 3:43PM|#
No. No God threads. Only the aesthetics of iconic symbolism or Obama insults are allowed here.
|8.11.09 @ 3:43PM|#
"Universe + God" is unnecessarily complex. "Universe" will
suffice. Further more, when in doubt, the burden of proof goes to
the asserter of a proposition. You assert the existence of a God,
sans proof."
You assert the lack of existence of God sans proof. That is just
the point. There are some things that are beyond the relm of
science. Science has nothing to say about the existence of God.
Again, you miss the point. Nowhere do I say or claim that there
exists a scientific proof of the existence of God. I am only saying
there is not and cannot be a scientific proof against God.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 3:45PM|#
John - why on earth do you assume that there was
nothing before the Big Bang?
Again, you stumble across something that looks like it has a
"beginning" and say "A HA! This has a creation point! Ergo, a
creator!"
It is the Watchmaker's Fallacy; it's just a different
facet of it.
What I am talking about is the fact that the universe had a defined beginning
"Defined" by you.
|8.11.09 @ 3:45PM|#
I agree Pro, but they started it. And worse still, they started it by completely misinterpreting what I was saying.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 3:46PM|#
You assert the lack of existence of God sans proof.
I also assert the lack of fairy unicorns, green goblins and the
Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Seriously, were you asleep in logic class or something?
|8.11.09 @ 3:48PM|#
"John - why on earth do you assume that there was nothing before
the Big Bang?"
I don't assume anything. Just the opposite. Science has nothing to
say about what happened before the big bang. It can't say anything
because it can't make any observations there. you say there was X
before the big bang. I say there was Y. Both of us are guessing and
making assertions based on faith. That is the point.
"Again, you stumble across something that looks like it has a
"beginning" and say "A HA! This has a creation point! Ergo, a
creator!"
No. I am saying it could be. Anything else is faith on my part.
Just like you saying it wasn't a creator is faith on your part.
Neither one of us can make any observations to confirm or deny our
faith.
"It is the Watchmaker's Fallacy; it's just a different facet of
it.
What I am talking about is the fact that the universe had a defined
beginning
"Defined" by you."
No it is not. The teological argument claims to prove the existence
of God. I am making no such claim. I am only claiming that your
belief that there is no God is just as faith based as any
theist.
|8.11.09 @ 3:48PM|#
We finally really did it. [screaming]: You maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 3:49PM|#
your argument from ignorance is amusing, but is still a logical fallacy, John. You suffer problems under religious doctrines, Occam's Razor and you have the problems of infinite regress, at a minimum.
Teh Debbil|8.11.09 @ 3:49PM|#
Yes, Xeones, and there's nothing, NOTHING you can do about
it!
Bwahahahahahhah!
P.S. It doesn't matter who runs for President, I always win.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 3:50PM|#
John, it's an article of faith on your part to assert that your
car is not run by little green invisible goblins.
Prove me wrong.
The people on your television screen are actually teleported there.
Prove me wrong.
|8.11.09 @ 3:50PM|#
"I also assert the lack of fairy unicorns, green goblins and the
Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Seriously, were you asleep in logic class or something?"
Apparently you were because that is a stupid argument. You have
lots of observations to base you assertion that there are no
unicorns or whatever. If they were running around the world you
would after all see them. But you have no observation to base your
assertion that God is not responsible for the big bang. You have no
way of seeing beyond the big bang and thus no way of making any
scientific assertions about its cause or anything that happened
before it. You say it wasn't God, because that is your faith.
Fluffy|8.11.09 @ 3:53PM|#
I think John is having some difficulty in expressing himself
here that maybe I can try to clear up.
Since there is currently no way for us to usefully create
hypotheses for the nature of being before the Big Bang [because all
of our categories of expression - time, cause and effect, existence
and non-existence understood as the presence or absence of matter
and energy - only have meaning after the Big Bang], all statements
about what existed before the Big Bang have equal truth
value.
That means that the statement "Before the Big Bang God was chillin
and shit" and the statement "Before the Big Bang there was nothing
at all" have equal truth value.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 3:53PM|#
John - the Sun is filled with Fire Gods. you can't see in there. prove me wrong.
|8.11.09 @ 3:54PM|#
"John, it's an article of faith on your part to assert that your
car is not run by little green invisible goblins."
Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. We can go out and
observe my car. We can hypothesize on how it runs. We cannot go out
and observe the world (if there was such a thing) before the big
bang. We can only guess, which is another way of saying
believe.
hmm|8.11.09 @ 3:55PM|#
John - the Sun is filled with Fire Gods. you can't see in
there. prove me wrong.
Easy. After a night of Thai food and drinking the Fire Gods can
clearly be felt coming out of my ass.
|8.11.09 @ 3:57PM|#
"Universe + God" is unnecessarily complex. "Universe" will
suffice.
Occam's razor only applies when you have two models that
both fit the data or observations. There is no existing
explanation for how our current universe could come into existence
without something else existing beforehand (which requires its own
existence to be explained).
Not saying that this proves God's existence, but invoking Occam in
this case is incorrect. You don't have a competing explanation.
|8.11.09 @ 3:57PM|#
Pro,
Consider this karmic payback for your gratuitous Star Trek
reference. If you hadn't mentioned Hawking, none of this would have
happened.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 3:58PM|#
observe your car all you want, John. They're invisible!
good thing Fluffy saved you, because that is not what you were
saying at all. Even so, I have never asserted "pre-Big Bang
nothingness" as the antagonistic proposition.
Fluffy|8.11.09 @ 3:58PM|#
Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. We can go out
and observe my car. We can hypothesize on how it runs. We cannot go
out and observe the world (if there was such a thing) before the
big bang. We can only guess, which is another way of saying
believe.
I think it goes a little beyond that, even:
There is no call for attempting to apply the rules of logic to the
time before the Big Bang.
The rules of logic are only worthy of respect because they conform
to the conditions in our universe. In our universe, it is
impossible for an object to simultaneously have and not have the
same attribute in the same respect. In our universe, causes precede
effects. But these things are only true because of the laws of
reality as they are in our universe, particularly the exact nature
of time in our universe.
This means that saying, "John, you are engaging in logical
fallacies in your statements about conditions before the Big Bang,"
is meaningless, because before the Big Bang there was no logic.
Before the Big Bang, there was no before.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 3:59PM|#
Tulpa:
Then it is "?" or "? + God".
The same thing applies. Saying that it is an article of faith that
current universe's "existence" is like saying that it's an article
of faith that I won't suddenly turn into a blob of green
Jell-o.
hmm|8.11.09 @ 4:00PM|#
I just got off the phone with God. He says you're all
wrong.
I didn't know you knew my wife?
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 4:01PM|#
Before the Big Bang, there was no before.
What happened to "matter cannot be either created nor destroyed"?
To assert pre-Big Bang as "nothingness" is incomprehensible
nonsense. "Something" does not come from "nothing".
|8.11.09 @ 4:02PM|#
Fluffy,
You're assuming that time is a deeper property of existence than
causation. I would question that assumption, especially since our
entire concept of time is actually based on causation, not the
other way around.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 4:02PM|#
Unless the Big Bang was a local phenomenon.
There is another solid explanation. Saying that there was nothing
before this 'universe' is akin to saying there was nothing before
you existed.
MattXIV|8.11.09 @ 4:03PM|#
TAO,
It would bother me - my moral premises say that you shouldn't burn
people's houses down, especially mine, but if you think it's moral
to burn my house down, I don't expect you to refrain based on a
moral appeal. My morality also allows for defense of my person and
property, so I would instead appeal to your fear of injury and
death.
Subjective morality doesn't mean holding there's no right or wrong,
but that right and wrong are localized to the point of view of the
individual. I'm obliged to act according to right and wrong as I
see them; from my point of view, it doesn't matter in the least bit
if the would-be arsonist is abiding by his own morals, since it's
my morals that I'm obliged to follow when reacting.
|8.11.09 @ 4:05PM|#
"What happened to "matter cannot be either created nor
destroyed"? To assert pre-Big Bang as "nothingness" is
incomprehensible nonsense. "Something" does not come from
"nothing"."
So this something that is our universe came from? Since we can't go
back and look, we are left to guess. Frankly, the "scientific
guesses" of the landscape of universes pilled up on top of one
another like soap bubbles sounds no more convincing than a invite
pile of turtles stacked up holding the universe on their backs.
hmm|8.11.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Unless the Big Bang was a local phenomenon.
It is on Sunday morning after a rough Saturday night. If ya know
what I mean.
|8.11.09 @ 4:08PM|#
TAO, surely you would not say that Occam's Razor favors the idea
that the sun has always existed vs. the idea that it came into
being due to the gravitational attraction of hydrogen atoms. Yet
the latter explanation is far more complicated.
I repeat: the criterion of simplicity only matters when you have
alternative explanations. You're putting the theistic explanation
up against something that is not an explanation.
|8.11.09 @ 4:08PM|#
"The point is not to add complexity that isn't warranted by evidence. Whatever 'unviverse' is, it's surely less complex than 'universe + god.'"
What evidence is there of that? You just like that answer. It is no less of a faithful answer than saying there is a God.
If God is of nonzero complexity (which he surely must be), then
universe + god is more complex than just universe. There may be a
god, or some other explanation that adds complexity, but there is
no logical reason to assert its existence lacking any
evidence.
Then only logical position when confronted with explaining
something for which we have no evidence yet is "I don't
know."
But the real answer lies in quantum and sub-quantum physics. It
gets REALLY weird at those levels of reality, though perhaps not
quite as weird as a grandfather figure in the sky.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 4:09PM|#
Frankly, the "scientific guesses" of the landscape of universes pilled up on top of one another like soap bubbles sounds no more convincing than a invite pile of turtles stacked up holding the universe on their backs.
And we're back to this again.
|8.11.09 @ 4:10PM|#
Tony,
It doesn't get weird at the quantum level--at least, not
necessarily. What gets weird is our ability to observe things at
the quantum level.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 4:11PM|#
Tulpa - I certainly would say just that, because Occam's Razor is not "never add complexity", because sometimes explanations are complex. Occam's Razor simply states that when something gives an adequate explanation, you need go no further. Even if I cannot provide an alternative explanation, "science" is simpler than "science + God".
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 4:13PM|#
I should rush to add that "complexity" is a subjective notion.
|8.11.09 @ 4:14PM|#
Pro,
The problems of observation I take to be one aspect of quantum
physics' weirdness. Whatever turns out the be the case, the fact
that something can come from nothing spontaneously has an
explanation that is weird by any definition. But asserting an
intelligence behind it is perhaps the weirdest of all, since you
still have to explain the existence of that intelligence.
|8.11.09 @ 4:15PM|#
Occam's Razor simply states that when something gives an
adequate explanation, you need go no further.
That's not Occam's Razor. Indeed, that's quite an anti-scientific
attitude.
Occam's Razor says that when deciding among explanations that fit
the data equally, you should choose the simplest. And it's only a
rule of thumb; in some cases of limited information, Occam's Razor
will lead you to the wrong conclusion (ie, if a simple explanation
actually fails to fit data currently unknown).
|8.11.09 @ 4:19PM|#
Our perspective is pretty tied to the macroscopic world. The act of observation of the quantum world requires some sort of quantum medium--electrons, photons, and so on. Unfortunately, at that level, our act of observation changes that which we wish to observe. Thus we have uncertainty. While we can't talk about what actually occurs at that level with any certainty, I imagine that if we could observe it without effect, we'd see something less weird. But that's as unknowable as metaphysics at this point.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 4:20PM|#
Alright - noted that I was being sloppy.
Regardless, appeals to ignorance are not a good way to argue.
hmm|8.11.09 @ 4:23PM|#
Regardless, appeals to ignorance are not a good way to
argue.
unless running for office
|8.11.09 @ 4:25PM|#
The poster was very forgetable and not that creative. But,
the response to it made it better and more important than it should
have been.
I think we should fly it over state capitols in place of the
confederate flag. Pinkos need an outlet for their rage; who are we
to deny it to them?
-jcr
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 4:26PM|#
I don't know what you would call it, but there should be argumentum ad God as a logical fallacy that means you automatically lose. If you have to resort to an invisible, omniscient and omnipotent being that defies all reason and logic, you fail at arguing.
|8.11.09 @ 4:27PM|#
ProL,
The phenomenon of virtual particles, where particles come into
existence by "borrowing" energy from the vacuum, shows that the
Uncertainty Principle doesn't just apply to macroscopic observers,
it applies to nature itself. The vacuum can't pin down how much
energy has been stolen for how long (as energy and time are
analogous to the more famous position and momentum in the HUP)
|8.11.09 @ 4:29PM|#
Tulpa -
TAO, surely you would not say that Occam's Razor favors the
idea that the sun has always existed vs. the idea that it came into
being due to the gravitational attraction of hydrogen atoms. Yet
the latter explanation is far more complicated.
I believe this sun analogy is way, way off, because an infinitely
existing sun, to my way of thinking and understanding, is much much
more complex and confounding than the attraction of hydrogen atoms.
So, Tulpa, to answer your question, yes, the infinite sun IS more
complex an idea and thus gets razored right out.
Fluffy|8.11.09 @ 4:30PM|#
What happened to "matter cannot be either created nor
destroyed"? To assert pre-Big Bang as "nothingness" is
incomprehensible nonsense. "Something" does not come from
"nothing".
The laws of thermodynamics are also a function of the way our
universe is set up, so it's not useful to attempt to apply them to
a time period before the universe existed.
You're assuming that time is a deeper property of existence
than causation. I would question that assumption, especially since
our entire concept of time is actually based on causation, not the
other way around.
There would be no evidence for causation if you could not observe
changing states over time. Time is a "deeper property" than
causation in the say way it's a "deeper property" than
acceleration.
The "strangeness" of the time before the Big Bang cannot be
overestimated and we have a hard time even using our language to
describe it. I would submit that it's virtually impossible to
understand, as opposed to merely describe, the
observation that Time is an attribute of our universe and did not
exist before the universe existed. If you take away every concept
related to Time and say, "You can't employ any of these concepts to
describe the state of being before the Big Bang" then you literally
can not have anything to say.
|8.11.09 @ 4:34PM|#
There would be no evidence for causation if you could not
observe changing states over time.
And there would be no evidence for time without causation. They're
very interwoven concepts. Try to define one without refering to the
other.
|8.11.09 @ 4:34PM|#
If I wasn't clear above, the sun analogy compares explanations
at two different stages. The hydrogen attraction model goes into
detail about why teh sun exists, thus creating complexity, while
the infinite sun version merely asks that you ignore how that could
be possible.
Given a fair playing field where the hydrogen sun model faced an
adequately explained model of how the sun could exist infinitely, I
think the answer would be fairly obvious which is more
simple.
In other words... I'll explain how the sun formed scienitifically,
and you explain how it managed to exists infinitely, and I'll bet
mine is more simple.
|8.11.09 @ 4:34PM|#
You know, the thing that disappoints me the most about the left
wing in this country is they way they shut up about every rotten
thing that Obama's doing that they complained about when it was
Bush doing them. Anyone seen a protest about the war or suspension
of habeus corpus lately? Didn't think so.
-jcr
|8.11.09 @ 4:36PM|#
there should be argumentum ad God as a logical fallacy that
means you automatically lose.
There is. Invoking god is just a specific kind of Argumentum ad
Veracudiam (argument from authority).
-jcr
|8.11.09 @ 4:36PM|#
TAO's right, I think.
There's a big difference between an infinitely existing universe
that is the sum of all existence and explaining how one piece of
that universe could exist in its current state infinitely when
everyone around it dies and degrades and changes.
|8.11.09 @ 4:38PM|#
Big B hits the nail on the head above. Militant atheists are fond of placing the theistic explanation for existence on a playing field with a very vague and incomplete atheistic explanation and then claiming that Occam supports their side.
|8.11.09 @ 4:39PM|#
"Something" does not come from "nothing".
Why not? If Reality didn't come from nothing, what could it
possibly have come from?
|8.11.09 @ 4:39PM|#
Big B pisses away his hitting the nail on the head at 4:34 with his comment at 4:36.
|8.11.09 @ 4:40PM|#
JCR - that bugs me big time as well.
Habeaus corpus, Gitmo and the rest were immediate, dire threats to
life, liberty and the American way a mere 10 months ago. Now, not
so much as a peep.
Don't even get me started about how every death in Iraq was
chronicled before, and now, not so much.
Or, how any hint of a troops surge in Iraq was a horror, we were
just supposed to pull out and let it be, while in Afghanistan, a
troop ramp up meets nothing but happy acceptance.
|8.11.09 @ 4:43PM|#
not if the universe is the sum of all existence.
Well that's just begging the question (traditional meaning). If you
define the universe as everything that exists, you don't need to
explain why it exists.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 4:43PM|#
Tulpa - define "militant atheist" please. Anyway, Big B
understands the point.
If Reality didn't come from nothing, what could it possibly have come from?
Reality IS existence. Existence exists.
|8.11.09 @ 4:44PM|#
Tulpa - my comment (that you like so much) was more a criticism
of your point than one supporting it.
Line up a a scientific equation of hydrogen attraction and sun
formation beside the argument that "it exists infinitely" and of
course the latter wins.
But that's not fair.
You have to explain both the athiest explanation (science) and the
thiest explanation of how the sun can exist infinitely. On this
field, the science wins, in my opinion.
But I'm an athiest who struggles with the question of religion on a
somewhat frequent basis, so what do I know.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 4:44PM|#
If you define the universe as everything that exists, you don't need to explain why it exists.
And...what would you define the universe as?
|8.11.09 @ 4:44PM|#
Militant atheists are fond of placing the theistic explanation for existence on a playing field with a very vague and incomplete atheistic explanation and then claiming that Occam supports their side./blockquote>
Atheists are comfortable with saying "I don't know" when they don't know, rather than offering up an outlandish explanation with absolutely no evidence for it, since it is not rational.
|8.11.09 @ 4:45PM|#
And question begging is question begging. Though I'm not surprised, given your namesake's "A is A" obsession.
|8.11.09 @ 4:46PM|#
Tulpa,
Does the behavior of virtual particles prove anything? Don't we
still come down to the fact that we can't see "down" far
enough?
|8.11.09 @ 4:47PM|#
And...what would you define the universe as?
Everything that can be observed, directly or indirectly.
|8.11.09 @ 4:48PM|#
Tulpa - infinitely existing universe - Yes, because it doesn't
continue to exist in the same state or in that one instance in
time. It changes, grows, degrades, reduces. The universe expands
and that expansion slows. There are theories on what happens next,
but science tells us matter is neither created nor destroyed. The
universe is infinite.
But the sun, well, it changes and degrades too. So you have a heck
of a challenge to show my why it exists infinitely, when nothing
else around it does. Why doesn't it adhere to the rules of
everything else.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 4:49PM|#
Sorry, Tulpa, but I don't see your indirect question of "Where does reality come from?" as a useful or even a rational question.
|8.11.09 @ 4:51PM|#
my comment (that you like so much) was more a criticism of
your point than one supporting it.
That may be how you intended it, but that may not be what it turned
out to be. Like the wise man above said, the road to heaven is
paved with bad intentions.
In short, I don't see how the infinite universe model is somehow
immune to the requirements you laid upon the infinite sun
model.
|8.11.09 @ 4:53PM|#
TAO, it's a question that's been asked ever since language existed. But if you're comfortable with being willfully ignorant, that's OK.
|8.11.09 @ 4:54PM|#
This:
but science tells us matter is neither created nor destroyed.
does not imply this:
The universe is infinite.
The universe, if defined as the stuff that exists post-big bang, is
certainly not infinite. So the law of conservation applies to the
universe as it exists, but may not apply to other states. It's
possible that it's consistent with the laws of quantum mechanics
for stuff to come into existence spontaneously.
|8.11.09 @ 4:57PM|#
Does the behavior of virtual particles prove anything? Don't
we still come down to the fact that we can't see "down" far
enough?
The point is, it's not us that's the problem. The problem lies with
nature itself. Even nature's own "energy conservation cops", which
have access to every level of reality, are limited by Werner's
Vagueness Axiom.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 4:57PM|#
But if you're comfortable with being willfully ignorant, that's OK.
Uh, OK, I'm not, but you believe what you like. Asking where
"reality" comes from is sheer nonsense. Reality is the entirety of
existence - it does not exist in and of itself.
The universe, if defined as the stuff that exists post-big bang, is certainly not infinite.
There's no reason to define the universe this way.
|8.11.09 @ 4:59PM|#
Reality IS existence. Existence exists
Well existence itself doesn't exist, existent things exist, but I
see what you are saying. Still, the only thing apart from Reality
is nothing, so we need to look there for where Reality came from if
we care to ask such a thing.
MonkeeHeadinSouth|8.11.09 @ 5:01PM|#
good altitude but
what I can say about the left is
mutualists
seriously give em a chance
It does make sense
left libertarians
its good shit
i'm like the most anti-commie-state fish
but really I actualy think that left libertariabns are more
comiited toi anti-statism tbhan right wing libertarians
read u+
iots juist that us right wingers
outr shit is easier to sell
but left libertarians thats good shit
|8.11.09 @ 5:03PM|#
Reality IS existence. Existence exists
I think you're confusing two meanings of existence. It can mean the
concept of what it means to exist, or it can mean "all that
exists". These are not necessarily the same thing.
Michael|8.11.09 @ 5:03PM|#
Oh, this is rich...
"Most artists get to the point where they would like people to
recognize their work by some sort of signature style," Fairey said.
"Either, it's done by an artist who doesn't want people to know who
they are, or it's not done by an artist."
Strip the style from Mr. Fairey's work - any of it - and you're
left with absolutely nothing. Not even a skeleton. Not one single
piece he's ever made had any kind of substance; it's all style. Now
someone comes along and gets people talking quite loudly about a
stark, minimalist composition (featuring what appears to be a
fucking Helvetica font, no less) utilizing Fairey's most beloved
recent subject matter and he is obviously steamed. Can anyone blame
him?
|8.11.09 @ 5:05PM|#
The universe, if defined as the stuff that exists post-big bang, is certainly not infinite.
There's no reason to define the universe this way.
Except that's how it's always been defined. Don't know if that's a
good reason, but it's a reason.
Whatever exists beyond that we may never have access to. The
sticking point with creationists is that they rush to argue from
ignorance whenever they learn about a gap in scientific knowledge.
But the gap is now smaller than an electron and shorter than a
millisecond. God must be really small to fit in there.
|8.11.09 @ 5:07PM|#
Except that's how it's always been defined.
Right. Even Aristotle defined the universe as being "after the Big
Bang".
|8.11.09 @ 5:10PM|#
Prime mover unmoved.
Tulpa,
It's hard not to think that there is something artificial or
illusory about our perceived reality. But that's hardly a new idea.
Nor is there much we can do about that at this point, either.
Rimfax|8.11.09 @ 5:10PM|#
If God exists, He is too complex not to have been created by an intelligent being. It's turtles all the way down.
|8.11.09 @ 5:16PM|#
ahh crap! i read all this for nothing!
can you imagine my disappointment after reading all those comments;
and you guys still haven't come to a conclusion whether God exists
or no?
|8.11.09 @ 5:17PM|#
Maybe "God" was created by one of the other "Gods" mentioned in the Bible in places too numerous to mention and too obvious and well known to cite.
The Libertarian Guy|8.11.09 @ 5:18PM|#
"...Obama is not Marx. He didn't create socialism."
No, but he's doing a hella job watering, fertilizing, and pruning
it.
|8.11.09 @ 5:32PM|#
And...what would you define the universe as?
Everything that can be observed, directly or indirectly.
So, before we observe something, it isn't part of the universe? Not
sure I'm willing to go there.
|8.11.09 @ 5:40PM|#
"...Obama is not Marx. He didn't create socialism."
oh i get it! obama is not marx, Obama IS God!
question answered. this was no threadjack! it was Divine
Inspiration!
MattXIV|8.11.09 @ 5:48PM|#
It's possible that it's consistent with the laws of quantum mechanics for stuff to come into existence spontaneously.
It's not only possible, it happens all the time in pair generation
and produces observable effects - as long as the total amount of
conserved quantities all add up, there's nothing that prevents
particles from being generated from a vacuum.
Jeremy Hilary Boob|8.11.09 @ 5:49PM|#
So, before we observe something, it isn't part of the universe? Not sure I'm willing to go there.
Ah, but whether we can observe something is not the same as whether
we do observe it. Ipso ergo op cit. Helvetica fargo luxor. Magnum
trojan gobot.
|8.11.09 @ 5:57PM|#
as long as the total amount of conserved quantities all add
up, there's nothing that prevents particles from being generated
from a vacuum.
Energy conservation is certainly violated by pair production.
The Angry Optimist|8.11.09 @ 5:58PM|#
not to be too obtuse, but is there true "nothingness" inside of a vacuum?
hmm|8.11.09 @ 6:04PM|#
not to be too obtuse, but is there true "nothingness" inside
of a vacuum?
Mine is full of cat hair.
Paul|8.11.09 @ 6:17PM|#
I mean, fuck, he's regurgitated Warhol without the charm and
warmth."
No, he's regurgitated Warhol with all the charm and
warmth.
Erwin S.|8.11.09 @ 6:26PM|#
Dead or living?
A linear combination of a dead state and a living state.
|8.11.09 @ 6:28PM|#
he's doing a hella job watering, fertilizing, and pruning
it.
Watering and fertilizing, yes. Pruning, not so much.
-jcr
Sean W. Malone|8.11.09 @ 6:56PM|#
Can I just say two things here:
A. As a "strong" atheist... I couldn't care less how the
universe emerged. It doesn't matter in the slightest to my life,
and I - along with the rest of humanity - will never, ever
know.
There's no use speculating and I've got much better things to worry
about.
I've also got better things to do with my time than try to prove a
negative as John seems to demand. All I really care about is
The Data So Far
and...
B. Calling Fairey an "artist" is remarkably generous. As far as I
can tell, he's not much more than an overly popular t-shirt
merchant who's made a handsome living ripping off other people's
ideas, stripping them of all history, meaning and artistic taste,
pasting them on stickers & coffee mugs and selling them to the
wannabe socialist/revolutionary-sheik yuppies who live in
Williamsburg.
Worse than that... His "art" doesn't even work as
meta-critique!
For example, the Obama=Joker + Socialism poster has got absolutely
nothing on this
Maoist piece of shit.
If Fairey was actually an artist (or actually cared about the
ideology he espouses) he'd realize that using Soviet Realism to
depict Obama is the most appropriate reference to
Obama-as-Socialist anyone could possibly think of... But nope, he
is too retarded to even understand what he created.
Fuck that plagarizing screen-printer. He should be working at
Kinkos, not participating in any discussion - of politics
or art.
The Libertarian Guy|8.11.09 @ 6:57PM|#
True, John, but Bush wasn't worth half a shit at pruning, either.
K.T.|8.11.09 @ 7:15PM|#
I do have to say, Mr. Fairey's ramblings may be among the most narrow minded I've ever read.
MattXIV|8.11.09 @ 7:26PM|#
Tulpa,
Energy/mass is conserved in pair generation - either some external
energy source is used (like when very high energy photons can
create electron/positron pairs) or one of the particles ends up
with negative kinetic energy, which is what happens with photon
pairs at the even horizon of a black hole to produce Hawking
radiation if I recall correctly - the negative kinetic energy
electron goes into the black hole and cancels out some mass while
the positive kinetic energy photon escapes.
TAO,
Not the way most people think of "nothing". According to my
understanding (which is a bit tenuous itself), in QFT, it could be
said to consist of the system in an area with lowest possible
expected (in the probability sense) energy. Even the ground state
of a system has uncertaintly associated with it, so the expected
energy is greater than zero - this can't be higher than the vacuum
energy, otherwise a vacuum would be colder than absolute zero and
would draw energy from systems at it.
LicketySplit|8.11.09 @ 8:08PM|#
Good grief. Threads that turn into 'is sos and is nots' about God are like cripple fights. Only much less interesting.
|8.11.09 @ 8:30PM|#
Matt,
Pair generation occurs even in the absence of an external energy
source (and this is the case with Hawking radiation, btw). What's
operative here is the energy-time version of the HUP. Conservation
of energy can be violated for a (very) brief time so long as E*t
< hbar.
In the case of Hawking radiation, once the first particle enters
the event horizon its energy (and an equivalent amount of energy
inside the black hole) ceases to exist as far as the universe is
concerned. That's how the second particle is allowed to continue
existing.
|8.11.09 @ 8:35PM|#
the negative kinetic energy electron goes into the black
hole and cancels out some mass while the positive kinetic energy
photon escapes.
Skipping past the ersatz concept of negative KE, you do realize
this would violate charge conservation, right? Electron has -1 and
photon has 0.
Fairey Sucks|8.12.09 @ 12:15AM|#
Banksy crushes Fairey as a street artist.
Banksy crushes Fairey as a street artist.
Banksy crushes Fairey as a street artist.
Banksy crushes Fairey as a street artist.
Banksy crushes Fairey as a street artist.
JB|8.12.09 @ 1:04AM|#
Fuck Shepard Fairey. I hope he dies a slow, painful death in a
car crash and I hope it happens soon.
That's Hope and Crash I can believe in!
Jim Treacher|8.12.09 @ 9:30AM|#
The surest proof that there's no God is that Shepard Fairey is allowed to exist.
MattXIV|8.12.09 @ 12:40PM|#
Tupla,
That should be another photon. Don't know why I typed electron
there.
As for conservation violation vs negative KE, I think we may be
expressing the same idea. In tunneling, for the particle to go
through the classical barrier it needs to have a potential energy
higher than it's total energy, which you could treat as having
negative KE or as violating conservation. I've heard virtual
particle pair generation explained in terms of negative KE most of
the time, but there's different ways of relating quantum mechanics
to classical concepts that ultimately mean the same thing.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245