Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » An emerging trend? LAB voters are now more likely to say th

13»

Comments

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    Shame to see the railway at Dawlish in such a sorry state. Never been that way by rail - nearest equivalent in the London/Essex area I can think of is Chalkwell station on the London, Tilbury & Southend Line, right on the Thames Estuary.

    As a kid, I was terrified, taking that train when there was a storm, and seeing spray from the waves crashing over the track. (Obviously, the storm was nothing like as bad as the current one).

    I also remember a terrifying storm in either 1979 or 1980 when the inhabitants of Slapton Sands had waves and boulders crashing through their houses.

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,038
    Pulpstar said:



    If any such being(s) exist I doubt they'd take much of an interest in the affairs of one tiny little planet amongst the billions (maybe trillions?) of others in the universe(s?).

    But all the major religions (Certainly the Abraham ones) make out that we are incredibly important in the scheme of things ;).

    They they are omniscient then surely they can take interest in everything at once? ;-)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,470
    Polruan said:

    Gildas said:

    I've been out of the country for a month. Not back for a week. What is all this weather you guys are having?

    I thought it was a joke til I saw those pictures of Dawlish. Eeek.

    Have you seen the latest BBC footage? http://t.co/hg6GIhWI4h

    Think it'll be a while til I take the sleeper between London and Penzance again.
    It'll be interesting to see how they fix it. From memory, they've patched up the wall in the past and put rip-rap (blooming big boulders, often from Scandinavia) at the base to protect the wall's toe - one failure in the past was a rotational failure. But it could also fail by being undercut by scour, and the best way to tackle this would probably be blooming big and deep piles, and that would take much longer.

    It'd depend on the underlying geology - the beautiful devonian red sandstone isn't the most resistant rock. There's an interesting link on Dr Ian West's brilliant website:
    http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~imw/Teignmouth-Dawlish

    Note that at the turn of the last century, the seawall was extended out to sea to allow it to be double-tracked, which can only have made the situation worse. The beach in front of the wall has disappeared due to lack of replenishment from the cliffs.

    As for why it's happened now: it could well be that the wall has been weakened by the earlier storms, and they haven't had a chance to get the teams out before this one blew in. All it needs is for the pointing to go and the next big storms can do serious damage.

    I should really have gone into geological engineering. :-(
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083
    TGOHF said:

    BenM said:

    So Tim is proven correct about Cameron's (and the wider conservative movement in general) inability to attract women to the fold.

    How many union leaders are women Ben ?




    I make it 14 of the 54 TUC-affiliated unions have female leaders with another 5 or 6 having names that could be male or female (I'm not dedicated enough to google each one I'm afraid). Obviously "leader" is a difficult concept in the occasionally People's-Front-of-Judea world of some unions and there are several where most of the executive are female but the person who appears to be most senior is male. Worth noting that a fair few of the unions represent trades where 90%+ of workers are male (the reciprocal situation is less common). Also, some of the unions are less than a thousand strong, so the junior-deputy-undersecretary of Unite (say) is probably in a rather more senior position than that leader.

    Not sure what any of this proves given that the union leaders are member-elected, but anyway...

    http://www.tuc.org.uk/britains-unions
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    weejonnie said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Gildas said:

    Hugh said:

    CD13 said:

    Charles,

    I'm comfortable with RT calling God who he likes. Atheists tend to be determined to press their views, but it's their problem not ours.

    Science is great as explaining how, but can never explain why. Currently, the favourite "how" to explain the world and it's beginning is the multiverse and all its variants. The world seemed so fine-tuned for life, that this "fixes" the chances. Unfortunately, it brings in the troublesome infinities.

    So an infinite number of yous are having this identical argument with an infinite number of RTs at this very moment. Just think about that ... not a squillion yous, but an infinite number.

    If you have to believe that to explain cosmic coincidence, a "Sky Fairy" seems quite sensible.


    Multiverses are actually far more scientific than God.

    The reason being, they are in fact an inevitable prediction of robust scientific theories (eg quantum theory) whose other predictions have been verified by observation.

    In the same way general relativity predicts time dilation (which we can observe) but also things we can't observe (like what goes on inside black holes).

    Although there are some predictions we can never test, we just have to take them as part of the package of a successful theory.

    And if you really want to blow your mind with multiverses, try this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality
    In an infinite number of universes, there must be at least one - or indeed trillions - where God exists. Therefore, God exists.
    Silly argument. There are lots of things, such as prime numbers divisible by 4, which we know do not exist in any universe. Same with an omnipotent being who is meant to love all humans as a parent loves a child, but is ok with a world like this where the torture of children is pretty much an everyday occurrence.

    In an infinite number of universes then IFF E 1+ God ==> oo || God

    i.e. if (and only if) at least one God exists then there must be an infinite number of Gods in an infinite number of universes

    Note the qualification
    Can you show a proof for that ?
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Pulpstar said:

    " There are lots of things, such as prime numbers divisible by 4, which we know do not exist in any universe."

    For a couple of thousand years it was a universal truth, true in any universe, that the sum of the angles in a triangle was 180 degrees. In other words there could not exist a universe in which that statement could be false. Then in the early 19th century Gauss proved that there were other geometries in which the sum of the angles need not be 180 degrees.

    Is it not a little rash to make such a bald statement that in an infinite number of universes only those things which we know with our level of knowledge today to exist can exist?

    You need to change the definitions of either 'number', 'prime' or '4' to come up with a prime number that is divisible by 4 though. In the set of naturals excluding 2 (Or indeed 3), 4 is prime. But if 4 (And other naturals) has the normal meaning of S(S(S(S(0)))) then it can't be prime...
    You are, of course, correct. However, if we take it that mathematics is a method of explaining the universe rather than a thing of itself. Until the 19th century geometry was a mathematical method of explaining space and everyone knew how space worked and it could be explained by a set of rules. Then Gauss, and later others, came along and proved (using the mathematical sense of the word) that there were other valid, coherent and complete explanations of space.

    So I ask is it possible that there are other systems in which the "rules" of number theory no longer hold? Could be, perhaps. We have already invented (discovered?) one in which there is a square root of -1.
  • I'm not sure this thread has been pb.com's finest hour.

    On topic, I'm not sure the certainty to vote graph is showing % figures that are any higher than Labour achieved in May 2010, although I accept the total number now identifying labour as their voting intention is higher.

    It's a problem for the Tories and whether Cameron can convince his natural supporters to vote for him again next year. Personally, I'm not sure 'we've done a good job' and 'be very afraid of Ed Miliband' are going to be enough.
  • GildasGildas Posts: 92

    Pulpstar said:

    " There are lots of things, such as prime numbers divisible by 4, which we know do not exist in any universe."

    For a couple of thousand years it was a universal truth, true in any universe, that the sum of the angles in a triangle was 180 degrees. In other words there could not exist a universe in which that statement could be false. Then in the early 19th century Gauss proved that there were other geometries in which the sum of the angles need not be 180 degrees.

    Is it not a little rash to make such a bald statement that in an infinite number of universes only those things which we know with our level of knowledge today to exist can exist?

    You need to change the definitions of either 'number', 'prime' or '4' to come up with a prime number that is divisible by 4 though. In the set of naturals excluding 2 (Or indeed 3), 4 is prime. But if 4 (And other naturals) has the normal meaning of S(S(S(S(0)))) then it can't be prime...
    You are, of course, correct. However, if we take it that mathematics is a method of explaining the universe rather than a thing of itself. Until the 19th century geometry was a mathematical method of explaining space and everyone knew how space worked and it could be explained by a set of rules. Then Gauss, and later others, came along and proved (using the mathematical sense of the word) that there were other valid, coherent and complete explanations of space.

    So I ask is it possible that there are other systems in which the "rules" of number theory no longer hold? Could be, perhaps. We have already invented (discovered?) one in which there is a square root of -1.
    True, unless you see the laws of maths as being somehow outside the universe, or universes, and superior to them - immutable and unchangeable - a Platonic ideal. Eternal and divine. Like a kind of God. Or, indeed, God.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,038
    Hugh said:

    According to the various scientific theories that predict them, most multiverses HAVE to have the same fundamental laws of nature as ours if they are to exist.

    In that sense you can't use parallel universes to argue that a God exists (at least a God that violates nature's laws).

    Though there are some theories that predict wacky parallel universes where 2+2=trombone.

    So if most multiverses have to have the same fundamental laws, then surely that means an infinite number do not?
  • GildasGildas Posts: 92
    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:



    If any such being(s) exist I doubt they'd take much of an interest in the affairs of one tiny little planet amongst the billions (maybe trillions?) of others in the universe(s?).

    But all the major religions (Certainly the Abraham ones) make out that we are incredibly important in the scheme of things ;).

    They they are omniscient then surely they can take interest in everything at once? ;-)
    Excellent theology. The whole *point* of God is that He knows, and cares, when the little sparrow dies, even when no one else does. Because God is the sum of all consciousness.

    I have had a large gin. And I'm having another.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Just about to walk into pictures to watch 12 Years in Chas and Dave... Wonder how many people will have taken the amazing value of 4/5 Con to bt Ukip in Thurrock 15 by the time the films over? Or whether @MickPork will have substantiated the nonsense he is pretending to believe regarding me and the Batten charter last night??

    Both unlikely IMO
  • GildasGildas Posts: 92

    I'm not sure this thread has been pb.com's finest hour.

    It's a lot more f*cking interesting than the voting certainty of Labour supporters, the lack of women in the Cabinet, et al.
  • Gildas said:

    I'm not sure this thread has been pb.com's finest hour.

    It's a lot more f*cking interesting than the voting certainty of Labour supporters, the lack of women in the Cabinet, et al.
    Well, it is politicalbetting.com Personally, I'm very interested in the voting certainty of Labour supporters at the next election; I have a four-figure sum riding on it.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    NU FRED
  • So I ask is it possible that there are other systems in which the "rules" of number theory no longer hold? Could be, perhaps. We have already invented (discovered?) one in which there is a square root of -1.

    Number theorists do study alternate number systems, such as the Gaussian integers (ones of the form a+bi, a and b both conventional integers). In that system, five isn't prime, because 5=(2+i)(2-i). More generally, we can look at fields of polynomials with integer coefficients, modulo any chosen polynomial.

    However, it can be shown any integer-like system, in a certain technical sense, contains the standard integers. Thus, none of them can have four be prime unless mathematics is internally inconsistent.

    At this point, we run into the Godel incompleteness theorems. Maths can't prove itself consistent. However, since if it isn't, all logic collapses, and your bank balance is simultaneously £6,819, -£125,000*i, and an annoyed orange dragon carved from pure diamond, we may as well assume maths is consistent. It's the only way we'll ever get anywhere sane.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited February 2014
    isam said:

    Just about to walk into pictures to watch 12 Years in Chas and Dave... Wonder how many people will have taken the amazing value of 4/5 Con to bt Ukip in Thurrock 15 by the time the films over? Or whether @MickPork will have substantiated the nonsense he is pretending to believe regarding me and the Batten charter last night??

    Both unlikely IMO


    Dear god, what on earth are you crying and blubbering about now sammy.

    You attacked the Batten stuff in the guardian and you're no more pleased about it in the Mail.

    Both true and both easily seen on both treads so suck it up.
  • Josias Jessop (FPT)

    "Urrrm, part of the Cambrian Coast is closed because they are upgrading it. Replacement of an existing toll bridge led to the existing bridge suffering from scour last November, and the rather funny collapse of a nearby high-tension power pylon:"

    Urrrm? Part had indeed been closed, but the whole line has now been closed from north of Machynlleth since the start of January. Services to Barmouth have been promised to reopen in mid Feb, but it will take longer to fix damage in several places north of Barmouth. No timescale has been given for reopening to Harlech specifically, and the full line is not scheduled to reopen fully now until mid May.

This discussion has been closed.