Is American highways worth of the lives killed and damaged by accidents

[yinyinwang]

You still haven't even told me what these rules are, but now you claim that they are as structured as probabilistic outcomes. Well, then you must be able to explain them if you can prove them. I await said explaination.

Aaron
Physics for example has many discoveries about nature that can be regarded as rules of nature.

[yinyinwang]

You think that God's will can be intuitively derived at? Not my intuition. But tell me what your intuition tells you God's will is. Mankind has only gone to wars over that. So, it would save a lot of lives if you could just tell us what His will is.

Aaron
I wish god will would be that easy to estimate. With the help of intuition, of cource, but intuition is not enough by itsself.

[yinyinwang]

Here's a personal challenge for you. I'm a bit of a poker player. But God is much, much better.

I play poker by estimating the odds. Since you think that estimating God's will is roughly equal in difficulty I challenge you to a poker match. You play your cards according to God's will. I'll play according to my estimates of probability.

What say you?

Aaron

btw, how much money do you have? ;)
There are many kinds of poker, which one are you refering,
I also have a game for you, I trade forex by predicting price movement, you trade by what ever means you like, decision theory whatever and I trade mine, what would you say?

[yinyinwang]

Aaron

btw, how much money do you have? ;)
Is this relevent?

[HeavyAaron]

Physics for example has many discoveries about nature that can be regarded as rules of nature.

You have specifically stated that the "rules of nature" are not the laws of nature. Are you saying they are connected? Why won't you decribe these "rules of nature" as I still haven't the slightest idea what you mean by that.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

There are many kinds of poker, which one are you refering,

I'm adept at many varients. Omaha-8 is probably my personal favorite. I presume God is very good at any of them.

I also have a game for you, I trade forex by predicting price movement, you trade by what ever means you like, decision theory whatever and I trade mine, what would you say?

Hmmm... unfortunately I've not studied foreign currency exchange markets and would be out of my league. Since I don't have God on my side, I'm going to need something I have a lot more personal skill in. But fear not,k no matter what game is choosen, you'll win. God is better than I am at everything.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

I wish god will would be that easy to estimate. With the help of intuition, of cource, but intuition is not enough by itsself.

But you said it was similar to the intuition of riding a bike. Surely, if you can ride a bike then, you'll be able to discern God's will rather accurately.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

Is this relevent?

Umm... no reason ;)

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

You have specifically stated that the "rules of nature" are not the laws of nature. Are you saying they are connected? Why won't you decribe these "rules of nature" as I still haven't the slightest idea what you mean by that.

Aaron
I think you got it wrong. I simply change the word or term, not the contents, because I think the term "law of nature" is a little bit misleading.

[yinyinwang]

I'm adept at many varients. Omaha-8 is probably my personal favorite. I presume God is very good at any of them.



Hmmm... unfortunately I've not studied foreign currency exchange markets and would be out of my league. Since I don't have God on my side, I'm going to need something I have a lot more personal skill in. But fear not,k no matter what game is choosen, you'll win. God is better than I am at everything.

Aaron
I play bridge but not poker, it looks bluffing a lot.

[yinyinwang]

Umm... no reason ;)

Aaron
I like being tested and enjoy intellectual conversation, if you want something light, you are welcome, we can talk about girls and all the stuff but just don't mix them.

[HeavyAaron]

I think you got it wrong. I simply change the word or term, not the contents, because I think the term "law of nature" is a little bit misleading.

So the "rules of nature" is synonomous with the "laws of nature" you just prefer to use a made up term? Okay, great. You should have said so LONG before now. But then explain to me why suicide is against the "rules of nature" as it certainly isn't against the "laws of nature." Also, for that matter, violating the laws of nature is not possible without super natural occurances (by definition.) So, if you're defining what is rational to be that which is consistant with the laws of nature, why then every action is rational! Again, we reach a problem were your definition of rational has become meaningless.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

I play bridge but not poker, it looks bluffing a lot.

Don't worry about it. God knows how to play.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

So the "rules of nature" is synonomous with the "laws of nature" you just prefer to use a made up term? Okay, great. You should have said so LONG before now. But then explain to me why suicide is against the "rules of nature" as it certainly isn't against the "laws of nature." Also, for that matter, violating the laws of nature is not possible without super natural occurances (by definition.) So, if you're defining what is rational to be that which is consistant with the laws of nature, why then every action is rational! Again, we reach a problem were your definition of rational has become meaningless.

Aaron
The reason I changed the term:
1)to make it cross-disclinary, not just physics.
2)so rules of nature incorporate the laws of nature in physics.
3)as to the suicide discussion, it is not against the laws of physics, but since rules of nature also include some principles of ethics, then it is not rational in general.

[HeavyAaron]

The reason I changed the term:
1)to make it cross-disclinary, not just physics.
2)so rules of nature incorporate the laws of nature in physics.
3)as to the suicide discussion, it is not against the laws of physics, but since rules of nature also include some principles of ethics, then it is not rational in general.

Ethics? Whose ethics? (And since this is part of your "scientific definition" no appealing to God.)

For all that time that the universe existed without people, did these ethics still exist?

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

The reason I changed the term:


I do hope you know that all other branches of science are just subsets of physics. Chemistry, biology, psycology, etc. simply examine a particular physical phenominon which is also governed by the physical laws.

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Ethics? Whose ethics? (And since this is part of your "scientific definition" no appealing to God.)

For all that time that the universe existed without people, did these ethics still exist?

Aaron
Some axioms of ethics about human socialty like not stealing, not killing including yourself(this is debatable when heavily sick) should be included.
Ethics is related to human behavior, rationality is relative in time and space.

[yinyinwang]

I do hope you know that all other branches of science are just subsets of physics. Chemistry, biology, psycology, etc. simply examine a particular physical phenominon which is also governed by the physical laws.

Aaron
I do think all scientifical studies are all related in one way or another, they just tackle a different aspect of nature, but I also believe that scientific meathods should be extended into sociology.

[HeavyAaron]

Some axioms of ethics about human socialty like not stealing, not killing including yourself(this is debatable when heavily sick) should be included.
Ethics is related to human behavior, rationality is relative in time and space.

You can't even list TWO ITEMS without questions. Come back when you have a complete, internally consistant, universally agreed upon, set of ethics.

Even if you did manage that impossible feat, I'd still disagree with you. It's perfectly sensable to me that a person can rationally behave unethically, and you're very far from a convincing counter arguement.

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

I do think all scientifical studies are all related in one way or another, they just tackle a different aspect of nature, but I also believe that scientific meathods should be extended into sociology.

News flash! They are! Sociology is a social science. Congratulations on suggesting a scientific field use a scientific meathod. (Why didn't they think of that?)

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

News flash! They are! Sociology is a social science. Congratulations on suggesting a scientific field use a scientific meathod. (Why didn't they think of that?)

Aaron
You got it wrong once again.
what I try to say is that new meathods developed in other areas of study should be adopted when appropriate. Thanks to that we can say that sociology is more scientific than it was 50 years ago.

[yinyinwang]

You can't even list TWO ITEMS without questions. Come back when you have a complete, internally consistant, universally agreed upon, set of ethics.

Even if you did manage that impossible feat, I'd still disagree with you. It's perfectly sensable to me that a person can rationally behave unethically, and you're very far from a convincing counter arguement.

Aaron
I don't think a "universally agreed upon" thing is possible, even for the laws of physics.
You can keep your narrow mind of whatever "rationality" for whatever reason, It is not my concern.

[HeavyAaron]

You don't have the quality of being consistant and reliable, that is my estimate of you.But if you expose yourself long enough like human history for me to study, I can have a pretty good estimate of you.

Are you saying that God possesses that characteristics of "being consistant and reliable?" How do you know this?

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

You got it wrong once again.
what I try to say is that new meathods developed in other areas of study should be adopted when appropriate. Thanks to that we can say that sociology is more scientific than it was 50 years ago.

What do you think I got wrong? You said:

I also believe that scientific meathods should be extended into sociology.

To which I replied, they already use the scientific method. Seems straight forward enough to me, yet you call me wrong. On what basis (or planet) do you do that?

Aaron

[HeavyAaron]

I don't think a "universally agreed upon" thing is possible, even for the laws of physics.
You can keep your narrow mind of whatever "rationality" for whatever reason, It is not my concern.

Oh, no! I've been told I have a narrow mind! The travesty! And what for? For believing that rationality has nothing to do with ethics! Gosh, I'm a terribly aweful, narrow minded person. :rolleyes:

Aaron

[yinyinwang]

Oh, no! I've been told I have a narrow mind! The travesty! And what for? For believing that rationality has nothing to do with ethics! Gosh, I'm a terribly aweful, narrow minded person. :rolleyes:

Aaron
for asking me how much money I have for no reason, is this enough? you want more evidance?

[yinyinwang]

Are you saying that God possesses that characteristics of "being consistant and reliable?" How do you know this?

Aaron
That is my estimate. At least god is much better than you on that.

[yinyinwang]

What do you think I got wrong? You said:



To which I replied, they already use the scientific method. Seems straight forward enough to me, yet you call me wrong. On what basis (or planet) do you do that?

AaronYou got it wrong once again.
what I try to say is that new meathods developed in other areas of study should be adopted when appropriate. Thanks to that we can say that sociology is more scientific than it was 50 years ago.

[HeavyAaron]

You got it wrong once again.
what I try to say is that new meathods developed in other areas of study should be adopted when appropriate. Thanks to that we can say that sociology is more scientific than it was 50 years ago.

I got it wrong? Pooh! If you "try to say" something, but actually say something else, and I call you on it, then you reverse what you said, then call me wrong, then you have a problem. And I don't feel like dealing with you any longer. I'm tired of your games.

You think that you know the nature of God, and think you should impose your understanding of Its nature on our understanding of rationality. That's crazy. I'm sorry you don't see that. I'm sorry you discount all the work that reasonable people have already done. But I think the cause is hopelessly lost on you.

Goodbye,
Aaron

[yinyinwang]

I got it wrong? Pooh! If you "try to say" something, but actually say something else, and I call you on it, then you reverse what you said, then call me wrong, then you have a problem. And I don't feel like dealing with you any longer. I'm tired of your games.

You think that you know the nature of God, and think you should impose your understanding of Its nature on our understanding of rationality. That's crazy. I'm sorry you don't see that. I'm sorry you discount all the work that reasonable people have already done. But I think the cause is hopelessly lost on you.

Goodbye,
Aaron
even If you think I made a mistake(I don't agree, maybe not that clear, but you can verify before making anyconclusions), so what? It is a serious damage to the understanding of rationality? I don't think so.
And you got it wrong again and again.
I am not trying to impose anything on anybody, I just give the reasons for what I am proposing and I said it is not my concern wheather you accept it or not, I only care if it stands to reasons, but I do seek opinions for what I prosose to test my ideas.