traders who are deeply religious

[trader28]

Quote from JohnnyK:

Maybe I'm not understanding this approach to science...to shush us up even before we ever get started.

Should we stop looking then? Or, should we look only far enough to prove this to be true?

This is a legacy of Plato, a pillar of influence in formulating the logics of separation. This was accomplished by postulating the "idea" to be archetypal and reality to be a frail, imperfect substitute. The problem with idealistic philosophy is that it considers truth to be an archetypal idea, from which reality, in a somewhat imperfect form, is derived. According to that viewpoint, reality matches the ideal only randomly, approximately and imperfetly. Intellectual idealism postulates truth to be primal and perfect, reality to be derivative and imperfect.

From a scientific viewpoint, such an approach to the universe has two fatal flaws. First, it will nullify objectivity by preconceptions of the universe. Second, the expected imperfections in reality become an excuse for careless observations, dishonest reports, and self-serving justifications. This especially becomes apparent when discrepancies can be disregarded as predictable margins of error concerning the "fixed idea" being upheld.

The purpose of science is to verify reality, not to prove theory. Its not really science to go out and postulate a truth or theory as an idealized concept and then go out and extract from reality patterns of evidence suitable to substantiating the theory....because you can always find a match to theory if you leave out enough evidence and tolerate a wide enough margin for error.

Reality is where you start. Truth is what we distill through observing patterns of constancy. Though truth is a constant, it's constancy must be confirmed though experience. So, everone's path to transcendent awareness will be unique. Truth has it's roots in a common reality, but it is not archetypal. Truth is the consummation of understanding which has proven to be workable, useful and progressive toward life.

Science is a dialogue between truth and reality. We have the whole universe in front of us, but until we understand the crucial relationship between truth and reality, we don't have science.

JohnnyK

What can I tell ya Johnny... giants have come before us and that is their testimony, men and women that have trained their mind to an unimaginable level... an adept such as the buddha who having lifted the veil of maya (illusion) could still not help you define that which is all and yet nothing... and as for science, it deals with what can be measured... and measuring the infinite is a fools game

 

[trainr]

________________________________________
Quote from trainr:
In the mind, we can conceive truths that are eternal and unchanging.
________________________________________

In the mind can be conceived, all kinds of incredible things of so called truths.

Since you haven’t refuted it, the statement stands. As a matter of fact, your response is in agreement.

________________________________________
Quote from trainr:
For example, a thing cannot be both existent and non-existent simultaneously.
________________________________________

God cannot do that? An "all powerful" God cannot exist and not exist simultaneously? Won't that truth be a serious disapointment and problem for God believers?.

You lost me. Are you disagreeing, with this as your evidence, or are you agreeing? I don’t see how you can tell me what God’s character is – or isn’t – unless you agree in his existence; in which case you don’t have an argument.
________________________________________
Quote from trainr:
That is an eternal truth upon which other truths may depend, but itself depends on no other truth to be known.
________________________________________

That's that then, damning proof!. God is not all powerful or all knowing otherwise It would know how to overcome that eternal truth of yours.

As interesting as you may find that statement, it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. The argument so far is regarding existence, not character, unless you are agreeing God exists; at which point we can move on to character.
________________________________________
Quote from trainr:
The existence of these other truths depends on a self-evident truth; they have a cause that is self-evident or cause-less.
________________________________________

Hang on you said.... "a thing cannot be both existent and non-existent simultaneously.",,,well sorry to spoil this but, there is your cause for that "self-evident truth."

I don’t understand what you’re saying. I suspect it’s incomprehensible, but I’m open to explanation. The context of my statement is a thing that is not eternal must meet the condition you quote. An eternal truth – or an eternal God – require no cause, else they would not be eternal.
________________________________________
Quote from trainr:
Therefore, the statement, “All effects have a cause except an ultimate cause” is true and not tautological.
________________________________________

Obviously not.

I don’t think you’ve established anything of the sort. Most of what you present here is mush.
________________________________________
Quote from trainr:
In the non-abstract, we can conceive of something called God. In order for this to be true of God, God must be eternal.
________________________________________

Whoa there... God now needs a cause, or is it two causes. The non-abstract and eternal it seems are now the causes for God.

At this point you are speculating. You don’t have enough foundation to make either claim, and both appear meaningless upon inspection.
________________________________________
Quote from trainr:
Or, if God is eternal, he meets the requirement of being an ultimate cause.
________________________________________

The universe too is the "ultimate cause" then.

(The literal meaning of universe is “one set of things.” The definition itself strongly implies that it isn’t all there is. A better word for that set would be “omniverse.” If there is more than this one set, the universe could not be a simultaneous superset and a subset of itself. )

One of the meanings of eternal is unchanging. We know by observation that the universe doesn’t meet that requirement.

Please prove the universe is eternal, if you feel otherwise.
________________________________________
Quote from trainr:
When you propose that all things are caused, and that therefore God doesn’t exist as a First Cause (because he violates the rule of causality, needing himself to be caused), you are proposing an infinite series of causes, which is meaningless; like a bunch of mailmen delivering an infinite series of letters, but no one wrote a letter.
________________________________________

Your are the one ruling in a causeless cause, nowhere have I proposed all things are caused.

Yet, you’ve been arguing against a causeless cause; you therefore believe all things are caused, unless you have a third alternative, your “positron pairs” comment notwithstanding.

vehn is right....for no real reason and for no purpose other than something abstract conceived in the mind, you are babbling,, ..no offense intended..

Alternately, he’s as wrong now as he was then, and the babbling is yours.

None taken.

 

[trainr]

Quote from Thunderdog:

First you conclude that God cannot be defined or conceived, and then you proceed to do just that. Cheeky.

The logic escapes you and doesn't require me to explain it. It is sufficient as is. Your posts of this nature, while trying to demonstrate foolishness, are working; just not in the way you intend.

I assume you're upset with me, and in your rush to condemn you don't fully read what has already been written. (That's my attempt to be kind. )

In general, however, I don't suffer fools gladly.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from trainr:

In general, however, I don't suffer fools gladly.

Then shaving in front of a mirror must be quite a challenge for you in the morning.

 

[trader28]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Then shaving must be quite a challenge for you in the morning.

TKO

 

[trainr]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Then shaving must be quite a challenge for you in the morning.

And your explanation of Larry Williams' and his daughter's successful collusion with a regulated futures broker is ...

(I know you won't answer, so to save time ... *plonk* ... you've been excommunicated.)

 

[trainr]

Quote from trader28:

TKO

Sorry -- but you haven't had a meaningful comment in over 30 pages. *plonk*

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from trainr:

And your explanation of Larry Williams' and his daughter's successful collusion with a regulated futures broker is ...

Interesting that we continue to discuss Larry Williams in a God thread. The parallel is compelling.

First, I don't think that brokers were quite as regulated then (when Larry "won" that contest) as they are now. But I am not an expert and won't pretend to be one. I suppose that is where we differ.

It is interesting that you, as a "trader," are fixated with someone who once "won" a contest many years ago, and his daughter who also apparently once won a contest. Yes, this is the stuff of which legends are born. It is interesting that you are fixated with someone who has probably written more books on trading than he has placed actual trades. It is interesting that he is less known for making a living trading than he is for writing books about doing so and selling expensive seminars. It is interesting that when Larry tried to manage money once (in a non-contest environment, oddly enough) he performed so badly that his investors had him investigated by the regulatory authorities. I don't think any charges were laid because apparent incompetence is not a chargeable offense. The legend continues.

Tell me, do you subscribe to his MoneyTree newsletter which assures you that you can make $10,000 a month working just 30 minutes a day? How is that working for you? Yes, this is exactly the kind of person you should place your faith in. Forget those traders who quietly trade and do well for themselves. Stand up for the circus barkers, and whatever you do, send Larry money.

 

[JohnnyK]

Quote from trader28:

What can I tell ya Johnny... giants have come before us and that is their testimony, men and women that have trained their mind to an unimaginable level... an adept such as the buddha who having lifted the veil of maya (illusion) could still not help you define that which is all and yet nothing... and as for science, it deals with what can be measured... and measuring the infinite is a fools game

If what can't be measured or defined proves useful, then it is a legitimate part of science. Its the job of science to address the workability of particulars and to strive for explanations and understanding within categories of common probability.

For example, in accessing particles and energy within the conservation field, absolute numerical values can be assigned to constants. Outside of this field, 'static' is the constant. The interesting thing about static is that, being indefinable, it can serve the singularity function as a unifying force without having to be a raw singularity in the isolated sense. A cool thing about the indefinable is its ability to adapt to circumstantial needs while being unconditioned by them.

So, we can understand that the functional power of true static can never be defined by structure or absolute quantities, because it is outside the realm of structure. Still, its potential can be understood and accessed.

Every constant is an index of equilibrium. Take for example the speed of light. The brilliance of Einsteins observation about the constant of light is that he was the first to demonstrate equilibrium IN MOTION as a constant of energy. Actually, the whole galaxy is equilibrium in motion. Locate the factors of equilibrium and you've located the constant.

I don't want to pretend to know everything, but here's what we do know:

Infinity is the universal factor that allows quantities to be translated to quality and qualities to be translated to quantity. So it relates to the transmission of potential in every dimension of reality.

Since man is dealing with energy defined by the principles of conservation, he understands it only as scarcity. And as long as mans primary supply of energy is subject to such scarcity, there will be no system of social democracy that can last long....

So maybe it is a fools game to not persue the usefulness of infinity...whether we can measure it or not.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from trainr:

...1. What is the temp of quark confinement?
2. What is the CBR temp (I gave this away in a previous post)?
3. What is the probable time dilation between 1 and 2?...

Yes, what better way than through quantum physics can one establish the validity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.