*We are yet to get to the point of a theory of everything, don't believe in newspaper headlines most of those popular science columns have their own hidden agendas*
Hi Debash. I would like your view on something, if thats OK.
I assume you will agree that a theory of everything must begin with the unification of E/M with gravity. As much as I can see no way to unify the two according the the excepted Classical model and Quantum theory, I do think that we some times are guilty of sticking to stringently to those models
Was wondering what your thoughts on this are.
it strikes me that any omniscient being will HAVE to know the future because of the entirity of knowing EVERYTHING. the fact that in theory nothing can happen without God knowing about... nothing at all, must mean that surprise is beyond him and that the future is somehow already ensconced in the present to a fine degree that the ALL KNOWING should be able to decipher.
I Think, therefore I am.
it's an overused quote but it's a start.
One can really only understand and/or believe what makes sense to our thinking brains. Mine sees God as nonsense. THis may be down to a lack of understanding or a wilfull need to be straight with myself and those around me to the point that I can't sign up to a team if I don't understand the rules of the game no matter how big the cup is at the end.
there may well be many scientists who believe in god so there really isn't a battle of SCIENCE V GOD. It's probably more to do with the areas where they so clearly clash, the devil being in the detail after all, and I'm sure there aren't many scientists who are willing to close their eyes to everything and just make the leap.
I would say that there are a significant proportion of people who believe in God who do so because they are frightened of there being nothing after death. But I can't simply decry all believers in God as being superstitious idiots. Provided they do something useful with their belief (such as being tolerant, charitable and kind) it is a very good thing and I envy them for it.
All the science we've got can't explain why there's something instead of nothing. And of course religion just reframes the question - it is because God made it - so why was there God instead of nothing? Most scientists now accept that there's no need for a tension between religion and science, it is as useful as arguing whether music is better than paintings. There are two camps and no rational argument can tempt someone over the divide.
Ely, the point I was trying to make earlier is that it's God's self appointed spokesmen that start off all these claims about what God is or isn't and then the philosophers get in on the act and in the end it is simply what we would like God to be rather than what God is. God like science has been used by the huxsters to their own ends and so it is inevitable that the two hypes must collide when science is really the study of God and His work.
I am going to repeat myself; I have said on a previous thread in a similar vein;
Actually George Van Win aka Mississippi is just a figment of our imaginations, he doesn't really exist. Last time I was in the pub with (what I thought was) him in Camden I blinked a few times, came to my senses and he disappeared.
It would seem to me that an impotent aspect of human nature is being over looked in this discussion. The 'Instinct' to be inquisitive, ask questions and explore.
Regardless of the fundamental differences that may exist between Scientific pursuit and Religious pursuit, at the heart of both is 'I believe', that fundamental aspect of the human need to understand and explore our own self awareness.
We Humans are instinctive by nature. We may not all spend our day to day lives asking questions like 'how did I come to be', but at a deeper level of the human psyc'y, we are driven by the need to explore and derive some model that will satisfy that instinctive aspect of Human nature..
It is probably that very curiosity that has not only sett us apart from other Species in terms of self awareness, 'the very thing that allows us to have this conversation and ponder the question of origin', but that it 'is' perhaps our curious nature that drives us to look for meaning in the first places.
Across all disciplines in the accumulated human data base, is that one characteristic that distinguishes us in terms of Psychological Societal development.
The instinct to ask questions. Regardless of believes and endemic to all humans.
I would argue that the question of origin 'is' the product of human conciseness and not the other way around.
Remember, everything that we perceive is merely a model based on our limited range of senses and interpretations.
*I could not disagree more with this... truly complex systems such as the brain are intertwined with the data such that it would be impossible to strip out data from the processing element in any meaningful way... The brains interesting properties are emergent, your ideas are very much in the reductionist vein which is increasingly being discredited as an attempt to understand what brains actually do in any meaningful way.
*
Gerry,
I didn't knew that my idea can be compartmentalized into reductionist cell. I agree thermodynamics and statistical mechanics cannot explain many phenomenon, and human brain is a complex system. From physical laws, yes even your statement about "it would be impossible to strip out data from the processing element in a meaningful way" is justifiable. But then to start a debate at macroscopic level on has to start with the classical picture, then one has to address the fluctuations and deviations. I would love to learn more on this issue, so if you have any particular publication (if it is a review article it will be better for me) in mind, please quote here...
Debashish
Thank you very much for pointing me to this resource Debashish. It really is rich with relevance and I look forward to exploring it further.
I have tried to sign up but am receiving surfer errors at the moment, but I will try again tomorrow.
that's from Waynes World 2 isn't it Radio? didn't have you down as the type to quote teen comedies. although I believe it's actually:
"and monkey's might fly out of my butt"
saying that, it ccurs to me that it might be a common expression in the states and therefore used in the film so you may not have had to see the film to know the expression.
Interesting captain, and logical.
And peace, once again, reigned throughout the land. All the happy children came out to play in the knowledge that the nasty ogre was back in his lair chewing on a dead fox. The only cloud on their horizon was the high likelihood that the fox hadn't been poisoned, and the ogre would re-emerge to rant and roar another day.
Debashish, over recent years, I have read lots of articles along those lines on
www.edge.org
I shall try and locate one or two for you. But if you have never been I would thoroughly recommend it as a melting pot of new ideas across both science and the humanities... you would be surprised at the calibre of scientists that regularly contribute there... the contributions are not always technical.. but they do give pointers for the more academically minded.
Ely,
Monkey's flying out of butts wasn't started by Waynes World. Neither was driving around in Gremlins (their car) and wobbling one's head to Queen.
That was perfected back in the 60's & 70's by folks like me and many many others. My favorite teen movie was Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
I don't think you should take either article on the New Scientist site too seriously Debashish - you may notice that the first article claims the age of the Universe to be 13 billion years while the second claims about 14... what's the odd few seconds between friends :o) No doubt it wil turn out to be dark time that was left behind while the Universe was expanding faster than light and depends on how many killer bubbles there are in the froth of your lager.
Hey Stu! I will refrain from calling you what i want to, for the sake of this thread. I don't know you nor want to, but watch your mouth pal. I don't take shit from anyone.
Back off or you will regret it. I promise.
Tai
We could all try and impress by talking about an obscure topic not generally discussed in normal social conversation. A sprinkling of bare-bones knowledge on complicated topics is never enough to fool anyone but the least intelligent. I COULD hold forth on several topics I doubt many people are well-versed in, but what's the point?. That isn't being clever, you just end up making a prat of yourself. They are just things that I developed an interest in over my life and are very much a minority interest, it's better to discuss those things with like-minded people. HE thinks that by trapping off about such things he is impressing us all, when in fact he is making himself look rather silly, and boring the arse off everyone. He is so obviously a sociopath with serious personality defects, probably rooted in his childhood.
Funny thing is missi, there are at least 8 individuals 'that I know of', on this forum who could debate this subject, intelligently and from different fields of knowledge. You being one of them and the others know who they are.
The difference being, that of the debates that I have taken part on ABC, these people 'Back up' their points. Not because they necessary fully understand the subject, but because they tend to poses good all round, down to earth intelligences.
Must be something to do with being writers.
Trust me missi, I know people who are extremely versed in their subjects, but can do shit else. Including do their shoes up.
It's part of the female reproductive system. Would some woman out there please explain it to him.
It's an old electronics joke...We used to send the "young pups" into the supply office to find a replacement fallopian tube. Sorta like a sawdust pump or a stansion extender or a sky hook...
Pages