Church + science = ...not creationism?

[Avoidist]

It's scientifically questionable, yes, but the underlying idea is a sound one: that for us and all of organic life as we know it requires a universe in which the physics allows for the creation of the atoms that form complex molecules such as carbon.

A universe could be conceived in which this is not possible, and if we make the very narrow-minded assumption that intelligence can only arise out of the existance of such molecules then such a universe would have nothing in it to appreciate it.

Thus through twisted backwards logic we conclude Descartes' philosophy applies to the universe itself because we're just that special, and hence the only type of universe that could exist would have to be similar if not identical to the one we are living in... yeah, it's kinda ego-centric to say the least.

 

[Eejit]

Firstly it's pointless to say that the universe must allow organic life to exist because it does exist. That doesn't tell us anything. Truisms are pretty worthless.
Secondly it's rather unimaginative and conceited to assume that any possible forms of life must have the same biochemistry as life on Earth.
Thirdly there is nothing 'wrong' with a universe where there is no intelligent life, so again the idea that there will be no life in a universe which cannot support life tells us nothing.

Your last paragraph is a disconnect from the previous truisms, "I think therefore I am" does not need to apply to a Universe.

 

[Dodo]

Infinity exist only in mathematics, doesn't exist in our physical universe and is the reason the general-relativity theory is flawed. **** infinity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFq6K07DUZ8&feature=PlayList&p=0B99C06A39C4D390&index=2

 

[Tyguy]

I like the way the article twice mentioned the fact that anyone posing opposite vies of the churches findings were either burned at the stake or blackmailed to recant their theories....then hundreds of years later the church extends a well overdue "you might be right, my bad".

I've gotten more and more annoyed at these types of discussions mainly because they just don't get anywhere. You just shove all the science down the throats of the religious but it will fall upon deaf ears as usual...Let's be honest, if you can't convince someone with undeniable evidence then you don't stand a chance to impact the decsions of anyone holding opposing views.

In the not too distant future people will gradually start shifting more and more towards the scientific findings regarding our place in the cosmos and less so towards the theological bologna. I used to be at the forefront of such discussions but people believe what they want to believe, it's easier to just nod and smile and go on with your day.

I foresee some more "burning at the stake" incidents around the time we make any type of contact with E.T.

 

[VirusType2]

Firstly it's pointless to say that the universe must allow organic life to exist because it does exist. That doesn't tell us anything. Truisms are pretty worthless.
Secondly it's rather unimaginative and conceited to assume that any possible forms of life must have the same biochemistry as life on Earth.
Thirdly there is nothing 'wrong' with a universe where there is no intelligent life, so again the idea that there will be no life in a universe which cannot support life tells us nothing.

Your last paragraph is a disconnect from the previous truisms, "I think therefore I am" does not need to apply to a Universe.

See I don't agree with any of that. In my opinion, as I stated a couple of pages back, I don't think the universe gives one shit either way if life exists. I also find it ridiculous to think that the universe is here because we need it be.

I find it almost as ridiculous to think that the universe wouldn't exist if there wasn't intelligent life to witness it. But there are a couple of ways you can take that. On one hand: god. But if you really really think deeply with this one, it's worth exploring. Deep deep in your mind. It's mind blowing to consider.

But it's true. We can never know, so it kinda sucks to have that question never able to be answered - just like religion itself.

But I never answered the WHY. Why gravity and protons, atoms and all matter work the way they do, frankly that's because it's beyond my level of education. Can it be scientifically explained?

 

[Tyguy]

But it's true. We can never know, so it kinda sucks to have that question never able to be answered - just like religion itself.

You need faith man!

 

[VirusType2]

No, you see, I don't need that. Following what I've been saying: It would be nice to understand why everything is the way it is, but it won't change anything, so let it go. Study and learn what we can. The mysteries unravel as the questions are answered. Each new scientific question answered is a puzzle piece in place towards the ultimate goal of total understanding.

We have written words.

I'm just afraid of time. We don't have forever.


Also, you're a bastard for getting that damned George Michael song stuck in my head.

 

[Eejit]

See I don't agree with any of that. In my opinion, as I stated a couple of pages back, I don't think the universe gives one shit either way if life exists.

You disagree with me? Point out where I said the universe does give a shit? Reading comprehension failure.

 

[VirusType2]

Are those your theories that I don't agree with? I was stating how my theory is different from the ones you listed. I never imagined that they were something you believe. So hostile all the time, you. But I apologize, because sometimes I'm not smooth with my words - my meaning isn't clear.

Moving on, don't you guys think that God would have made the sun burn forever if he gave a shit? All powerful?

God "Nuke in two billion, guys. Carry on." We are not important, we only think we are.

 

[Eejit]

Holy crap you're vague as hell sometimes. I say something, then you say "I don't agree with any of that". Are you now trying to tell me you "don't agree with" what I was arguing against rather than what I said (and what you quoted)?

 

[VirusType2]

Holy crap you're vague as hell sometimes. I say something, then you say "I don't agree with any of that". Are you now trying to tell me you "don't agree with" what I was arguing against rather than what I said (and what you quoted)?

The only reason I quoted you was because someone posted in between our posts, and mine was relative to the discussion you and Avoidist were having, while the interrupting post was related to the topic.

Anthropic Principle is actually several different ideas under the same label "Anthropic Principle", and I was arguing that 'my' theory wasn't as ridiculous as the variations of Anthropic Principle that you 'picked on' as being basically worthless.

I don't feel mine is worthless, but you are welcome to feel that way. And when I say my theory, it's because I didn't realize someone else had already created a similar theory. I have not fully explored past theories, having only discovered the Anthropic Principle hours ago.

I feel that life is here by chance.

 

[Eejit]

The ones I said were worthless were Weak Anthropic Principle which is just a restatement of facts, "life can exist because life does exist" and as such is fairly worthless. True, but banal.
Strong Anthropic Principle is somewhat pathetic.

Your 'theory' doesn't actually have much to do with Anthropic Principle as far as I can tell, besides rejecting SAP.

 

[VirusType2]

The ones I said were worthless were Weak Anthropic Principle which is just a restatement of facts, "life can exist because life does exist" and as such is fairly worthless. True, but banal.
Strong Anthropic Principle is somewhat pathetic.

In agreement. A restatement of facts is beyond worthless, I think the whole idea is detrimental to progress. It shuts down further thought and closes the subject for discussion after accomplishing nothing.


So many variants, but I think you are actually mistaking strong for weak:

Strong anthropic principle (SAP) (Carter): "the Universe (and hence the fundamental parameters on which it depends) must be such as to admit the creation of observers within it at some stage. To paraphrase Descartes, cogito ergo mundus talis est."
The Latin tag ("I think, therefore the world is such [as it is]") makes it clear that "must" indicates a deduction from the fact of our existence; the statement is thus a truism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle


Also, my vision of a multiverse was completely different than the one listed

The multiverse

Multiple Universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a Universe that allows us to exist.

My multiverse theory is that our universe is like a globe. Picture our universe as a drop of water. Everything in the universe is inside that drop. This drop is contained inside a much larger Superuniverse, presumably with many other 'drops', or universes.

The superuniverse could be anything (water/space/something else - even something not in our universe), and the idea could go further ... for the superuniverse could be a globe as well.

But anyway, we could never possibly know, but it's still amusing to consider, I think. I'm certainly not sold on it - merely considering the possibility.

 

[Letters]

Summary of thread:

Everything you need to know about aliens and the universe is in the movie Men in Black.

God, some of you sure use a lot of words just to say "nobody has a ****ing clue, but especially me".

 

[dream431ca]

Continuing the multiverse discussion, I think there is only one way of leaving our universe and that is Hyperspace.

Hyperspace simply means space that is anything above 3 dimensions.

The first dimension can be considered just a line, you can travel left and right; that's all. In the second dimension you add up and down, so you can travel up and down, left and right and any combination of up and down and left and right (diagonally for example).

In the 3rd dimension we add a "Z" axis or a line that we can travel back and forth on. So we can actually travel "through" space. In the second dimension we could only go up and down and left and right. For example if you were walking in the second dimension and you encountered a building, your only way to get past the building is to go over it. You could not enter the building. However in the third dimension as we all know, we can enter buildings as we have the "Z" axis.

The fourth dimension or hyperspace, is hard to describe, but what I have read is that hyperspace is not just moving through space but moving around space, much like moving around an object that is in your way. If we could move around the universe we could enter other possible universes. I could go into string theory right now, but I think I'll leave it here. I don't have 2 hours to sit here and write about it and you probably don't have an hour to read about it.

 

[morgs]

Right, as soon as Chewy has finished fixing the hyperdrive generator, we're off.