For children, they're fantasies; for adults, 'sacred'

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Ceeboo
_Emeritus
Posts: 7625
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:58 am

Re: For children, they're fantasies; for adults, 'sacred'

Post by _Ceeboo »

Hey again, BC (I appreciate the dialouge) :)


beefcalf wrote:
Here is a scientific conclusion: "The universe was created in a cataclysmic explosion at the beginning of time. And we know this because all matter we can see is expanding away from all other matter at a known rate. And if we do some straightforward math, it appears that 14.5 billion years ago, everything we can see must have been in one, small place"


LOL! (With you and never at you. I give you my word!) :)

The belief that a God created us


Considering the only two options that are available to us all, I would strongly suggest that this belief is at least as reasonable and plausible as the other one. (I realize, respect, and appreciate that you do/will not agree).

Peace,
Ceeboo
_zeezrom
_Emeritus
Posts: 11938
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:57 pm

Re: For children, they're fantasies; for adults, 'sacred'

Post by _zeezrom »

Fantasies are for adults too.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)

The Holy Sacrament.
_RayAgostini

Re: For children, they're fantasies; for adults, 'sacred'

Post by _RayAgostini »

beefcalf wrote:Here is belief: "The universe was created in a cataclysmic explosion at the beginning of time"

Here is a scientific conclusion: "The universe was created in a cataclysmic explosion at the beginning of time. And we know this because all matter we can see is expanding away from all other matter at a known rate. And if we do some straightforward math, it appears that 14.5 billion years ago, everything we can see must have been in one, small place"

A belief can be holding something to be true despite contrary evidence, or in the absence of supporting evidence.

A scientific conclusion is holding something to be true because of strongly corroborated evidence which does not allow for an alternate interpretation.

There are lots and lots of reasons to believe that the big bang happened. The evidences which contribute to this conclusion can be detected and measured by any person of any faith or creed.

The belief that a God created us, loves us, and wants us to all return to him is not supported by any corroborated evidence.


(Emphasis mine)

Well, I just happened to be doing a quick, non-log-in "surf" of MDB this morning and saw this, and I can't resist. Here's my advice: if you are not aware of the latest developments in science and cosmology, and you're an amateur like me (do we have any theoretical physicists here? If not we're all pretty much in the same category), go on Twitter and follow every science/astronomy/cosmology journal you can find, and get regular updates on the latest developments and thinking.

This is, in fact, now getting to be old news:

Beyond the Big Bang.

Hawking has now also virtually given up on finding a TOE (Theory Of Everything), and his reasons are interesting.

The part I bolded is astonishing. That is categorically not how science works.

I'm really busy today, so ciao for now.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: For children, they're fantasies; for adults, 'sacred'

Post by _Chap »

RayAgostini wrote:Well, I just happened to be doing a quick, non-log-in "surf" of MDB this morning and saw this, and I can't resist. Here's my advice: if you are not aware of the latest developments in science and cosmology, and you're an amateur like me (do we have any theoretical physicists here? If not we're all pretty much in the same category), go on Twitter and follow every science/astronomy/cosmology journal you can find, and get regular updates on the latest developments and thinking.

This is, in fact, now getting to be old news:

Beyond the Big Bang.

Hawking has now also virtually given up on finding a TOE (Theory Of Everything), and his reasons are interesting.

...


What is this part of the post trying to say?

One the one hand, the poster seems to be assuring us that he is in no position to say anything much about certain issues in cosmology.

On the other hand, he apparently thinks he is in a position to inform us as to the degree of interest to be attached to an eminent physicist's reason for a change in research direction. I'd like some credentials there, please ...

And is he trying to tell us that, in his view, the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe we observe is no longer common amongst well-informed physicists?

Or does he just want to be thought to have put a spoke in beecalf's secularist wheel?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_beefcalf
_Emeritus
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:40 pm

Re: For children, they're fantasies; for adults, 'sacred'

Post by _beefcalf »

RayAgostini wrote:
beefcalf wrote:Here is belief: "The universe was created in a cataclysmic explosion at the beginning of time"

Here is a scientific conclusion: "The universe was created in a cataclysmic explosion at the beginning of time. And we know this because all matter we can see is expanding away from all other matter at a known rate. And if we do some straightforward math, it appears that 14.5 billion years ago, everything we can see must have been in one, small place"

A belief can be holding something to be true despite contrary evidence, or in the absence of supporting evidence.

A scientific conclusion is holding something to be true because of strongly corroborated evidence which does not allow for an alternate interpretation.

There are lots and lots of reasons to believe that the big bang happened. The evidences which contribute to this conclusion can be detected and measured by any person of any faith or creed.

The belief that a God created us, loves us, and wants us to all return to him is not supported by any corroborated evidence.


(Emphasis mine)

Well, I just happened to be doing a quick, non-log-in "surf" of MDB this morning and saw this, and I can't resist. Here's my advice: if you are not aware of the latest developments in science and cosmology, and you're an amateur like me (do we have any theoretical physicists here? If not we're all pretty much in the same category), go on Twitter and follow every science/astronomy/cosmology journal you can find, and get regular updates on the latest developments and thinking.

This is, in fact, now getting to be old news:

Beyond the Big Bang.

Hawking has now also virtually given up on finding a TOE (Theory Of Everything), and his reasons are interesting.

The part I bolded is astonishing. That is categorically not how science works.

I'm really busy today, so ciao for now.



Ray,

I followed your link, but failed to see anything there which supports your assertion that my explanation "is categorically not how science works." Was I supposed to purchase the $90.00 book, read it, and find out for myself whether or not your assertion is supported by the contents of the book? Because I didn't. And from the press material for this book, I do not think I would find support for your assertion even if I did:

some press agent for the book Beyond the Big Bang wrote:The Big Bang model is now both theoretically and empirically well established, although it does not explain the mystery of the very beginning of our universe. Over recent years, however, new developments open up the exciting prospect of going "beyond" the Big Bang and even of finding a physical explanation for it. Surprisingly, the ancient idea of a past-eternal universe is being revived, but a variety of other fascinating new approaches -- from the Holographic Universe to Cosmic Natural Selection -- are also being pursued. This book provides an up-to-date overview of each of these competing scenarios with original contributions from the world's leading researchers in cosmology, who describe their own work and results in a manner understandable even to non-specialists.


I'll say it again, after thinking about it a good deal more, because, after all that extra thinking, I'm extra-sure I'm correct:

A scientific conclusion is holding something to be true because of strongly corroborated evidence which does not allow for an alternate interpretation.

If you claim that someone is saying that is not how science works anymore, then I'm here to tell you that they ain't doin' 'science'.

Science isn't lab-coats, white mice and test-tubes. It isn't microscopes, telescopes and spectroscopes. It isn't Latin names, German centrifuges and Martian rovers.

Science is using facts to guide you to a conclusion, not using your conclusions to guide you to your facts. Science can, and should, be done by anyone and everyone, every minute of their waking lives.
eschew obfuscation

"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag
_Sethbag
_Emeritus
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:52 am

Re: For children, they're fantasies; for adults, 'sacred'

Post by _Sethbag »

I'm uncomfortable, Beefcalf, with the part of your statement that says that the scientific belief is the explanation for facts that doesn't allow for any alternate explanation. Magic is an alternate explanation, and you can't prove that magic doesn't exist, so in my really absurd example, no scientific theory can meet your burden, because it cannot disallow magic. I agree with you though if we change "does not allow for any alternate explanation" to "seems to be the best explanation that explains the data" or some such formulation.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
_beefcalf
_Emeritus
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:40 pm

Re: For children, they're fantasies; for adults, 'sacred'

Post by _beefcalf »

Sethbag wrote:I'm uncomfortable, Beefcalf, with the part of your statement that says that the scientific belief is the explanation for facts that doesn't allow for any alternate explanation. Magic is an alternate explanation, and you can't prove that magic doesn't exist, so in my really absurd example, no scientific theory can meet your burden, because it cannot disallow magic. I agree with you though if we change "does not allow for any alternate explanation" to "seems to be the best explanation that explains the data" or some such formulation.


Granted... good point. Although my verbiage was to make clear that when the facts can, with equal parsimony, allow two different conclusions, I would submit that we have not yet arrived at the point where we can call it a 'scientific belief'. Yes, Ockham is implied.

In the case of the origin of the universe, magic is not on the same level of parsimony as the big-bang+expansion.
eschew obfuscation

"I'll let you believers in on a little secret: not only is the LDS church not really true, it's obviously not true." -Sethbag
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Re: For children, they're fantasies; for adults, 'sacred'

Post by _ludwigm »

Stanisław Lem's "His Master's Voice" !
Image I propose to read it Image


His Master's Voice (original Polish title: Głos Pana) is a science fiction novel written by Stanisław Lem, first published in 1968. It was translated into English by Michael Kandel in 1983. It is a densely philosophical novel about an effort by scientists to decode, translate and understand an extraterrestrial transmission. The novel critically approaches humanity's intelligence and intentions in deciphering and truly comprehending a message from outer space.
As a side effect, it contains speculations of events before the Big Bang.



And it is a good book, on my oath.
Read the plot here!

What would happen to us if we could truly sympathize with others, feel with them, suffer for them? The fact that human anguish, fear, and suffering melt away with the death of the individual, that nothing remains of the ascents, the declines, the orgasms, and the agonies, is a praiseworthy gift of evolution, which made us like the animals. If from of his feelings, if thus grew the inheritance of the generations, if even a spark could pass from man to man, the world would be full of raw, bowel-torn howling.

Image
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Re: For children, they're fantasies; for adults, 'sacred'

Post by _ludwigm »

This is a little long but You shouldn't read it.
Stanisław Lem again...

Ceeboo wrote:I know!
There are even some "adult" people who actually believe that everything came from exactly and completely nothing.
Tarski wrote:The alternative being that everything came from something ...


Here is something about nothing.
Stanisław Lem in the 'Cyberiad' wrote:How The World Was Saved

One day Trurl the constructor put together a machine that could create anything starting with n. When it was ready, he tried it out, ordering it to make needles, then nankeens and negligees, which it did, then nail the lot to narghiles filled with nepenthe and numerous other narcotics. The machine carried out his instructions to the letter. Still not completely sure of its ability, he had it produce, one after the other, nimbuses, noodles, nuclei, neutrons, naphtha, noses, nymphs, naiads, and natrium. 'This last it could not do, and Trurl, considerably irritated, demanded an explanation.

"Never heard of it," said the machine.

"What? But it's only sodium. You know, the metal, the element..."

"Sodium starts with an s, and I work only in n."

"But in Latin it's natrium."

"Look, old boy," said the machine, "if I could do everything starting with n in every possible language, I'd be a Machine That Could Do Everything in the Whole Alphabet, since any item you care to mention undoubtedly starts with n in one foreign language or another. It's not that easy. I can't go beyond what you programmed. So no sodium."

"Very well," said Trurl and ordered it to make Night, which it made at once - small perhaps, but perfectly nocturnal. Only then did Trurl invite over his friend Klapaucius the constructor, and introduced him to the machine, praising its extraordinary skill at such length, that Klapaucius grew annoyed and inquired whether he too might not test the machine.

"Be my guest," said Trurl. "But it has to start with n."

"N?" said Klapaucius. "All right, let it make Nature."

The machine whined, and in a trice Trurl's front yard was packed with naturalists. They argued, each publishing heavy volumes, which the others tore to pieces; in the distance one could see flaming pyres, on which martyrs to Nature were sizzling; there was thunder, and strange mushroom-shaped columns of smoke rose up; everyone talked at once, no one listened, and there were all sorts of memoranda, appeals, subpoenas and other documents, while off to the side sat a few old men, feverishly scribbling on scraps of paper.

"Not bad, eh?" said Trurl with pride. "Nature to an N, admit it!"

But Klapaucius wasn't satisfied.

"What, that mob? Surely you're not going to tell me that's Nature?"

"Then give the machine something else," snapped Trurl. "Whatever you like." For a moment Klapaucius was at a loss for what to ask. But after a little thought he declared that he would put two more tasks to the machine; if it could fulfill them, he would admit that it was all Trurl said it was. Trurl agreed to this, whereupon Klapaucius requested Negative.

"Negative?!" cried Trurl. "What on earth is Negative?" "The opposite of positive, of course," Klapaucius coolly replied. "Negative attitudes, the negative of a picture, for example. Now don't try to pretend you never heard of Negative. All right, machine, get to work!"

The machine, however, had already begun. First it manufactured antiprotons, then antielectrons, antineutrons, antineutrinos, and labored on, until from out of all this antimatter an antiworld took shape, glowing like a ghostly cloud above their heads.

"H'm," muttered Klapaucius, displeased. "That's supposed to be Negative? Well... let's say it is, for the sake of peace. . . . But now here's the third command: Machine, do Nothing!"

The machine sat still. Klapaucius rubbed his hands in triumph, but Trurl said: .

"Well, what did you expect? You asked it to do nothing, and it's doing nothing."

"Correction: I asked it to do Nothing, but it's doing nothing."

"Nothing is nothing!"

"Come, come. It was supposed to do Nothing, but it hasn't done anything, and therefore I've won. For Nothing, my dear and clever colleague, is not your run-of-the-mill nothing, the result of idleness and inactivity, but dynamic, aggressive Nothingness, that is to say, perfect, unique, ubiquitous, in other words Nonexistence, ultimate and supreme, in its very own nonperson!"

"You're confusing the machine!" cried Trurl. But suddenly its metallic voice rang out:

"Really, how can you two bicker at a time like this? Oh yes, I know what Nothing is, and Nothingness, Nonexistence, Nonentity, Negation, Nullity and Nihility, since all these come under the heading of n, n as in Nil. Look then upon your world for the last time, gentlemen! Soon it shall no longer be..."

The constructors froze, forgetting their quarrel, for the machine was in actual fact doing Nothing, and it did it in this fashion: one by one, various things were removed from the world, and the things, thus removed, ceased to exist, as if they had never been. The machine had already disposed of nolars, nightzebs, nocs, necs, nallyrakers, neotremes and nonmalrigers. At moments, though, it seemed that instead of reducing, diminishing and subtracting, the machine was increasing, enhancing and adding, since it liquidated, in turn: nonconformists, nonentities, nonsense, nonsupport, nears ightedness, narrowmindedness, naughtiness, neglect, nausea, necrophdia and nepotism. But after a while the world very definitely began to thin out around Trurl and Klapaucius.

"Omigosh!" said Trurl. "If only nothing bad comes out of all this . . ."Trurl

"Don't worry," said Klapaucius. "You can see it's not producing Universal Nothingness, but only causing the absence of whatever starts with n. Which is really nothing in the way of nothing, and nothing is what your machine, dear Trurl, is worth!"

"Do not be deceived," replied the machine. "I've begun, it's true, with everything in n, but only out of familiarity. To create however is one thing, to destroy, another thing entirely. I can blot out the world for the simple reason that I'm able to do anything and everything - and everything means everything - in n, and consequently Nothingness is child's play for me. In less than a minute now you will cease to have existence, along with everything else, so tell me now, Klapaucius, and quickly, that I am really and truly everything I was programmed to be, before it is too late."

"But -" Klapaucius was about to protest, but noticed, just then, that a number of things were indeed disappearing, and not merely those that started with n. The constructors were no longer surrounded by the gruncheons, the targalisks, the shupops, the calinatifacts, the thists, worches and pritons.

"Stop! I take it all back! Desist! Whoa! Don't do Nothing!!" screamed Klapaucius. But before the machine could come to a full stop, all the brashations, plusters, laries and zits had vanished away. Now the machine stood motionless. The world was a dreadful sight. The sky had particularly suffered: there were only a few, isolated points of light in the heavens - no trace of the glorious worches and zits that had, till now, graced the horizon!

"Great Gauss!" cried Klapaucius. "And where are the gruncheons? Where my dear, favorite pritons? Where now the gentle zits?!"

"They no longer are, nor ever will exist again," the machine said calmly. "I executed, or rather only began to execute, your order..."

"I tell you to do Nothing, and you... you..."

"Klapaucius, don't pretend to be a greater idiot than you are," said the machine. "Had I made Nothing outright, in one fell swoop, everything would have ceased to exist, and that includes Trurl, the sky, the Universe, and you - and even myself. In which case who could say and to whom could it be said that the order was carried out and I am an efficient and capable machine? And if no one could say it to no one, in what way then could I, who also would not be, be vindicated?"

"Yes, fine, let's drop the subject," said Klapaucius. "I have nothing more to ask of you, only please, dear machine, please return the zits, for without them life loses all its charm..."

"But I can't, they're in z," said the machine. "Of course, I can restore nonsense, narrowmindedness, nausea, neerophilia, neuralgia, nefariousness and noxiousness. As for the other letters, however, I can't help you."

"I want my zits!" bellowed Klapaucius.

"Sorry, no zits," laid the machine. "Take a good look at this world, how riddled it is with huge, gaping holes, how full of Nothingness, the Nothingness that fills the bottomless void between the stars, how everything about us has become lined with it, how it darkly lurks behind each shred of matter. This is your work, envious one! And I hardly think the future generations will bless you for it . . ."

"Perhaps... they won't find out, perhaps they won't notice," groaned the pale Klapaucius, gazing up incredulously at the black emptiness of space and not daring to look his colleague, Trurl, in the eve. Leaving him beside the machine that could do everything in n. Klapaucius skulked Home - and to this day the world has remained honeycombed with nothingness, exactly as it was when halted in the course of its liquidation. And as all subsequent attempts to build a machine on any other letter met with failure, it is to be feared that never again will we have such marvelous phenomena as the worches and the zits - no, never again.



by the way
"Oh yes, I know what Nothing is, and Nothingness, Nonexistence, Nonentity, Negation, Nullity and Nihility, since all these come under the heading of n, n as in Nil."
Normonism...

"never again will we have such marvelous phenomena as the worches and the zits - no, never again"
as the telestial things...

"Klapaucius, don't pretend to be a greater idiot than you are"
... (this is blue)
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
Post Reply