I have a theory about Valentine’s Day. No one really knows what to do with that day because hardly any one has a spouse or a date that they’re not mad at most of the time but they know that if they don’t pretend to love them at Valentine’s Day that person will be even more mad and stuff candy hearts down their throat until they choke. They also feel the pressure to spend hundreds of dollars on fresh flowers so that they will not be smashed over the head with the large vase that was positioned in plain view as a hint. There are naked babies with bow and arrows decorating every building. Anything you order from a restaurant is heart-shaped. If you are single, people look at you at parties as though you poked your head out of a casket at your own funeral. You see lips kissing and then realize it is just a decoration on a glass window or door. Where is the rest of the person? One must try not to think about what this holiday must have been about when the first mushy person tried to celebrate it. Why did it become traditional to give chocolate candies to the woman you just fought with because you insulted her about being overweight? Who started the tradition of checking couple’s memories about what kind of sausage they had for breakfast the morning before they first met? I don’t know about you, but Valentine’s Day strikes me as a very mysterious holiday. The only one that seems more useless is Groundhog Day!
I wrote responses to a few paragraphs in this article. I feel that it misrepresents determinism as well as misses the point of what the free will debate is about.
Grant Bartley: “Determinism itself comes in different flavours. Hard determinism of the most absolute sort is the theory that the entire history of the universe was already fixed from its very beginning by the setting of the laws of nature and the original states of the matter in it. This is no longer tenable due to the intrinsic indeterminacy – the random behaviour – at the heart of matter that is explored in quantum physics. But physics does apparently allow a somewhat less absolute determinism – the idea that the behaviour of the world is determined by previous physical activities, but with some randomness as to what the particular outcomes will be. So a quantum determinist could defend an…
View original post 494 more words
I haven’t posted anything on my blog for awhile. I figured I will share the most recent podcast because it’s so funny.
Chandler Klebs, George Ortega, Trick Slattery, David Joseph, Michael Walsh, and Jamie Soden talk about how to define what a religion is. However, as usual, they got sidetracked over terms like “supernatural” and “control”. Somehow George, Trick, and Michael moved onto string theory and quantum mechanics. Chandler was completely lost and was thinking about Star Wars because of George mentioning a fundamental force while David was making jokes in the chat. The podcast went on so long that Michael got hungry and thought of the doughnut theory of the universe.
Official Podcast Website: https://freewillscienceandreligion.wordpress.com/
Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/freewillscienceandreligion
Internet Archive collection:
Free Will, Science and Religion subscription links:
Details and software:
The audio podcasts are recorded through Skype calls using the iFree Skype Recorder software:
Chandler Klebs uses audacity to edit the audio files and export them to 128kbps mp3 files.
After the episode is uploaded to the archive.org collection, Chandler encodes a video by combining the logo image Trick Slattery made with the audio of the particular episode. This allows uploading to YouTube, Vimeo and other video sites.
This video was encoded by:
VSDC Free Video Editor