Comments on: Uh-oh

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:06:23 +0000

Oh my goodness, could that really be the Doormouse out there? http://www.victorianweb.org/art/illustration/tenniel/alice/7.3.html

By: Pyracantha

Pyracantha — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:24:24 +0000

Why all this argument? It is the “Teapot Nebula.”

By: Cynthia

Cynthia — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:02:43 +0000

Come on Quasar, Clifford’s “Storms in a Teacup” are explicitly about a battle brewing within physics, not a war brewing within civilization!

Face it, with an underlying intent to break away from the Motherland, colonial rebels staged a tea party to stir up support for revolution. In fact, the tea party was merely a platform to express a rallying cry; a rallying cry aimed to entice young recruits for battle. After all, leaders of the American Revolution knew good and well that residents from the old country were being hit with even higher taxes than the colonists: taxes needed to cover enormous debts following the costly Seven Years’ War.

These revolutionaries (including a few of my ancestors, in fact) were willing to sacrifice their safety: the safety of living under the security of a great military might, The British Empire. Simply put, they chose a chance for independence over safety and security. Doubtlessly, it was a huge gamble. But luckily, the chance for independence- needless to say – paid off quite handsomely.;)

By: Chinmaya Sheth

Chinmaya Sheth — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:07:08 +0000

“Since it was destroyed by a meteor, surely there must be debris floating around space. So, send out a few thousand probes and let it search every planet and every little spot in the solar system. It must find something. If not, then most likely it never existed.” What will be the experimental errors in this suggested experiment? I am a believer and I won’t accept anything less than 100% accuracy.

By: Vince

Vince — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:37:23 +0000

Perhaps you can’t prove it didn’t have a will or intellect. I suppose you’re perfectly entitled to believe that it did have a will or intellect, though you’d have no basis for that belief unless you knew something about this teapot that sets it aside from all other teapots that leads you to reason that this teapot is smart. Or perhaps many people throughout the ages testified that the teapot once existed and had a will and intellect and wrote about the cool things that the teapot did for them and said to them.

By: Sean

Sean — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:37:33 +0000

Can you prove that this teapot didn't have a will or intellect? How can you make such definitive statements about things that science can't prove?

By: Vince

Vince — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:30:25 +0000

Since it was destroyed by a meteor, surely there must be debris floating around space. So, send out a few thousand probes and let it search every planet and every little spot in the solar system. It must find something. If not, then most likely it never existed.

Teapots don’t care about us. Teapots don’t even have a will or an intellect for God’s sake!

By: Chinmaya Sheth

Chinmaya Sheth — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 20:17:01 +0000

No I don’t mean a theory of everything (I mean experimental knowledge).
So yes if you *can* perform 100% accurate observations between Earth to Mars in every direction at the same time and it doesn’t show up then I’ll stop believing in it. But until that happens no one can tell me not to believe in it.

By: Sean

Sean — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:47:34 +0000

Actually this teapot was destroyed be a meteor a couple of thousand years ago, so we can’t prove or disprove its existence empirically. But there are compelling non-eyewitness accounts suggesting that it cared about us and insisted upon our devotion.

By: Vince

Vince — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:29:25 +0000

I don’t know what you mean here. If I send out a probe and it travels to every corner of the solar system and finds nothing, then it doesn’t exist as a real object. Therefore the existence of this thing in the solar system is disprovable. Why should I need to know the complete quantum theory of gravity (which makes up a part of “knowledge about everything”) if I need to know whether this teapot exists?

By: Chinmaya Sheth

Chinmaya Sheth — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:11:01 +0000

Vince, Suppose I believe in this thing described in #27; if someone wants to say that it doesn’t exist they should have 100% accurate knowledge about everything.

By: Q9

Q9 — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:23:24 +0000

Cynthia said – “Now, it’s truly unfathomable to me how this little teapot has ended up sitting in the middle of the American Revolution. Go figure! ”

Cynthia, no history of “American Independence” in your school? – it was all a storm in a teacup – the storm brewed & brewed until it spilled over, it was a costly and blood-thirsty storm over taxes on T

By: Vince

Vince — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:12:12 +0000

Sorry, I was responding to a part of the quote in that wikipedia link when I wrote about parents passing a religion down.

Also, by “physical object” I mean a material object, an object made up of standard model, etc., particles.

If you can’t observe any of the properties associated with a teapot, then it’s not there.

By: Chinmaya Sheth

Chinmaya Sheth — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 04:20:16 +0000

Vince, #26 I said “The teapot is a physical object in the same sense God is a physical object.” Now that I think about it, I think that is confusion on my part. Staying strictly on topic, I think what Russell was trying to say is that to whatever degree of accuracy you can observe the volume between Earth and Mars he wants the teapot to be smaller than that. So I still think its very much *not* disprovable.

By: Chinmaya Sheth

Chinmaya Sheth — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 02:28:30 +0000

Vince, please present the full argument from quantum mechanics that this teapot doesn’t exist; at least more than “by quantum mechanics”. I am sure your argument will take us a long way in ‘proving’ that God doesn’t exist.

Also you ask:
“If a physical object can’t, in principle, be observed, then in what sense is it a physical object?”

The teapot is a physical object in the same sense God is a physical object.

I never said there was anything wrong with following a religion.

By: Vince

Vince — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:29:13 +0000

Also, I’m not sure what’s wrong with parents, who believe in a religion and in its truth and benefit to themselves and to society (as long as it embraces the dignity and rights of all humans), passing on their religion to their kids. Unfortunately, I can’t ask Russell.

By: Vince

Vince — Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:22:12 +0000

“No its not disprovable, by definition this teapot is too small to ever be observable.”

Then it doesn’t exist, by quantum mechanics.

Also, if it’s too small to be observable, then how is it a teapot? A teapot is something you use to brew tea. If it’s too small to be observable, then you can’t use it to brew tea, hence it’s not a teapot. If a chair had all its legs removed, it’s not a chair anymore. If a physical object can’t, in principle, be observed, then in what sense is it a physical object?

By: Cynthia

Cynthia — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:21:25 +0000

Originally, this talk on a teapot in interplanetary space was, more or less, gently oscillating between physics and culture. Then somehow, strangely enough, this teapot managed to find itself amidst religion and – of all things – amidst intelligent design. Yet, with the help or Quasar, of course;), it has managed to become embroiled in an epic tea party. Now, it’s truly unfathomable to me how this little teapot has ended up sitting in the middle of the American Revolution. Go figure!

By: Quasar9

Quasar9 — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:45:52 +0000

One hundred years ago
neutrinos could not be counted or measured
Does that mean neutrinos do not exist?
and, did not exist one hundred years ago?
-
I thought neutrinos are supposed to have started their journey 13.7 billion years ago in a big bang that cannot be proved (or disproved) – and flew straight thru the great teapot in the sky, and the teapot where you are brewing your pot of tea

Whether Tin tea pot, or china teapot?
Must be proof that intelligent life ‘created’ it
And used it in some (obscure) ritual called ‘brewing tea’
-
Whether this ritual was imported to China from India, or whether the British Empire tried to tax the ritual – no one is sure, but someone tells me “The Boston Tea Party” is where American Independence began. And the Sensational Alex Harvey Band’s track of the same name is still awesome, though not neutrinos but some other ‘nuclear decay’ have already called time on the man

By: Chinmaya Sheth

Chinmaya Sheth — Sun, 26 Nov 2006 15:46:43 +0000

Vince writes “The presence of this teapot is disprovable by the scientific method. Just fly a probe to the region. Religion, and beliefe in God is not disprovable by the scientific method.”
No its not disprovable, by definition this teapot is too small to ever be observable.