Crossing my fingers! :w00t:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/11489442/Big-Bang-theory-could-be-debunked-by-Large-Hadron-Collider.html
Quote
Big Bang theory could be debunked by Large Hadron Collider
Scientists at Cern could prove the controversial theory of 'rainbow gravity' which suggests that the universe stretches back into time infinitely, with no Big Bang
By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor
10:33AM GMT 23 Mar 2015
The detection of miniature black holes by the Large Hadron Collider could prove the existence of parallel universes and show that the Big Bang did not happen, scientists believe.
The particle accelerator, which will be restarted this week, has already found the Higgs boson – the God Particle – which is thought to give mass to other particles.
Now scientists at Cern in Switzerland believe they might find miniature black holes which would reveal the existence of a parallel universe.
And if the holes are found at a certain energy, it could prove the controversial theory of 'rainbow gravity' which suggests that the universe stretches back into time infinitely with no singular point where it started, and no Big Bang.
The theory was postulated to reconcile Einstein's theory of general relativity – which deals with very large objects, and quantum mechanics – which looks at the tiniest building blocks of the universe. It takes its name from a suggestion that gravity's effect on the cosmos is felt differently by varying wavelengths of light.
The huge amounts of energy needed to make 'rainbow gravity' would mean that the early universe was very different. One result would be that if you retrace time backward, the universe gets denser, approaching an infinite density but never quite reaching it.
The effect of rainbow gravity is small for objects like the Earth but it is significant and measurable for black holes. It could be detected by the Large Hadron Collider if it picks up or creates black holes within the accelerator.
"We have calculated the energy at which we expect to detect these mini black holes in gravity's rainbow [a new theory]. If we do detect mini black holes at this energy, then we will know that both gravity's rainbow and extra dimensions are correct, Dr Mir Faizal told Phys.org.
The second run of the LHC will begin this week and the beams are expected to go full circle on Wednesday for the first time since the 27km accelerator was shut down in early 2013 for an upgrade.
When it is fired up it will smash protons together at nearly double the energy that was used to find the Higgs boson.
Rolf Heuer, Director General of CERN, said the switch-on would create 'a new era for physics' which could also shed light on dark matter, dark energy and super-symmetry.
"I want to see the first light in the dark universe. If that happens, then nature is kind to me."
Scientists believe they could find the first proof of alternative realities that exist outside out own universe.
It is even possible that gravity from our own universe may 'leak' into this parallel universe, scientists at the LHC say.
"Just as many parallel sheets of paper, which are two dimensional objects [breadth and length] can exist in a third dimension [height], parallel universes can also exist in higher dimensions," added Dr Faizal,
"We predict that gravity can leak into extra dimensions, and if it does, then miniature black holes can be produced at the LHC.
"Normally, when people think of the multiverse, they think of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, where every possibility is actualised.
"This cannot be tested and so it is philosophy and not science.
"This is not what we mean by parallel universes. What we mean is real universes in extra dimensions.
"As gravity can flow out of our universe into the extra dimensions, such a model can be tested by the detection of mini black holes at the LHC."
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has undergone important upgrades and repairs over the past two years since the first shutdown.
The particle collider boasts new magnets, superior cryogenics, higher voltage and higher energy beams that will allow the machine to run at nearly double the collision energy of the first run.
The first circulating beams of protons in the LHC are planned for the week beginning 23 March, and by late May to early June the LHC aims to be running at 13 TeV.
Frances Saunders, president of the IOP, said, "This has been a massive effort by all the scientists and engineers at CERN to upgrade the LHC and its detectors and get it ready to operate at almost double the collision energies of the first run.
"As well as allowing greater study of the Higgs boson there is much anticipation amongst the physics community as to what else may be found at these higher energies, testing our theories and understanding of concepts such as supersymmetry and potentially giving greater insight into the 95 per cent of the universe that is composed of dark matter and dark energy."
Just imagine, there's another universe where Tim is reading a news article about expensive scientific machines being used to forward some theory and saying ":yawn:" instead of ":w00t:".
Maybe another universe exists where I am rich :bowler:
Quote from: Monoriu on March 26, 2015, 01:10:14 AM
Maybe another universe exists where I am rich :bowler:
Indeed, one does. :shifty:
Cern? Do they mean CERN?
I think we have proven that most of us live in parallell universes long ago. Nobel Prize for Languish.
Quote from: Norgy on March 26, 2015, 04:25:16 AM
I think we have proven that most of us live in parallell universes long ago. Nobel Prize for Languish.
How do we split the prize money? :unsure:
If it'd shut you up about money, I'd gladly give you my share, Mono.
Quote from: Norgy on March 26, 2015, 05:19:12 AM
If it'd shut you up about money, I'd gladly give you my share, Mono.
I'd take it, and continue to talk about money :hug:
LOL, I misread the title and was wondering why Timmy was coming out of the closet. :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 26, 2015, 12:42:30 AM
Crossing my fingers! :w00t:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/large-hadron-collider/11489442/Big-Bang-theory-could-be-debunked-by-Large-Hadron-Collider.html
Quote
Big Bang theory could be debunked by Large Hadron Collider
Scientists at Cern could prove the controversial theory of 'rainbow gravity' which suggests that the universe stretches back into time infinitely, with no Big Bang
By Sarah Knapton, Science Editor
10:33AM GMT 23 Mar 2015
The detection of miniature black holes by the Large Hadron Collider could prove the existence of parallel universes and show that the Big Bang did not happen, scientists believe.
The particle accelerator, which will be restarted this week, has already found the Higgs boson – the God Particle – which is thought to give mass to other particles.
Now scientists at Cern in Switzerland believe they might find miniature black holes which would reveal the existence of a parallel universe.
And if the holes are found at a certain energy, it could prove the controversial theory of 'rainbow gravity' which suggests that the universe stretches back into time infinitely with no singular point where it started, and no Big Bang.
The theory was postulated to reconcile Einstein's theory of general relativity – which deals with very large objects, and quantum mechanics – which looks at the tiniest building blocks of the universe. It takes its name from a suggestion that gravity's effect on the cosmos is felt differently by varying wavelengths of light.
The huge amounts of energy needed to make 'rainbow gravity' would mean that the early universe was very different. One result would be that if you retrace time backward, the universe gets denser, approaching an infinite density but never quite reaching it.
The effect of rainbow gravity is small for objects like the Earth but it is significant and measurable for black holes. It could be detected by the Large Hadron Collider if it picks up or creates black holes within the accelerator.
"We have calculated the energy at which we expect to detect these mini black holes in gravity's rainbow [a new theory]. If we do detect mini black holes at this energy, then we will know that both gravity's rainbow and extra dimensions are correct, Dr Mir Faizal told Phys.org.
The second run of the LHC will begin this week and the beams are expected to go full circle on Wednesday for the first time since the 27km accelerator was shut down in early 2013 for an upgrade.
When it is fired up it will smash protons together at nearly double the energy that was used to find the Higgs boson.
Rolf Heuer, Director General of CERN, said the switch-on would create 'a new era for physics' which could also shed light on dark matter, dark energy and super-symmetry.
"I want to see the first light in the dark universe. If that happens, then nature is kind to me."
Scientists believe they could find the first proof of alternative realities that exist outside out own universe.
It is even possible that gravity from our own universe may 'leak' into this parallel universe, scientists at the LHC say.
"Just as many parallel sheets of paper, which are two dimensional objects [breadth and length] can exist in a third dimension [height], parallel universes can also exist in higher dimensions," added Dr Faizal,
"We predict that gravity can leak into extra dimensions, and if it does, then miniature black holes can be produced at the LHC.
"Normally, when people think of the multiverse, they think of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, where every possibility is actualised.
"This cannot be tested and so it is philosophy and not science.
"This is not what we mean by parallel universes. What we mean is real universes in extra dimensions.
"As gravity can flow out of our universe into the extra dimensions, such a model can be tested by the detection of mini black holes at the LHC."
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has undergone important upgrades and repairs over the past two years since the first shutdown.
The particle collider boasts new magnets, superior cryogenics, higher voltage and higher energy beams that will allow the machine to run at nearly double the collision energy of the first run.
The first circulating beams of protons in the LHC are planned for the week beginning 23 March, and by late May to early June the LHC aims to be running at 13 TeV.
Frances Saunders, president of the IOP, said, "This has been a massive effort by all the scientists and engineers at CERN to upgrade the LHC and its detectors and get it ready to operate at almost double the collision energies of the first run.
"As well as allowing greater study of the Higgs boson there is much anticipation amongst the physics community as to what else may be found at these higher energies, testing our theories and understanding of concepts such as supersymmetry and potentially giving greater insight into the 95 per cent of the universe that is composed of dark matter and dark energy."
Cool. Thanks Tim :)
Quote from: Monoriu on March 26, 2015, 04:35:01 AM
Quote from: Norgy on March 26, 2015, 04:25:16 AM
I think we have proven that most of us live in parallell universes long ago. Nobel Prize for Languish.
How do we split the prize money? :unsure:
Chuck it all onto a major road and see who's brave enough to pick it up first. :)
Mono would be fine with Chinese people blocking roads then
Quote from: sbr on March 26, 2015, 01:17:17 PM
Mono would be fine with Chinese people blocking roads then
:D
Yeah I was sort of channelling that, keep the roads open at all costs vs those people stopping to pick the banknotes off the highway in HK a few months back.
If there are other universes, they will be nothing like ours beacuse of quantum dynamics and probabilities.
Quote from: mongers on March 26, 2015, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 26, 2015, 01:17:17 PM
Mono would be fine with Chinese people blocking roads then
:D
Yeah I was sort of channelling that, keep the roads open at all costs vs those people stopping to pick the banknotes off the highway in HK a few months back.
After I posted I realized I may have been giving away the joke.
Quote from: Siege on March 26, 2015, 02:13:44 PM
If there are other universes, they will be nothing like ours beacuse of quantum dynamics and probabilities.
Some other universe probably got the Singularity...and we'll be left with the Duality.
If I read the article correctly, this is more like the idea of a constellation or population of universes, not parallel universes. Though of course it is interesting in its own right, it's of no particular practical or philosophical consequence.
Quote from: Ideologue on March 26, 2015, 10:11:14 PM
If I read the article correctly, this is more like the idea of a constellation or population of universes, not parallel universes. Though of course it is interesting in its own right, it's of no particular practical or philosophical consequence.
One significant implication is that it provides a scientific answer to the folks who want to believe in intelligent design. Intelligent design proponents ask "why is the universe created so that it has just the right conditions for life?" and then suggest it cannot be random and that a higher power must have created it all. If science can prove parallel universes with random properties exist then the existence of our universe is the product of one universe out of countless others being randomly created.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2015, 10:58:40 AM
One significant implication is that it provides a scientific answer to the folks who want to believe in intelligent design.
ABOUT TIME
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2015, 10:58:40 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 26, 2015, 10:11:14 PM
If I read the article correctly, this is more like the idea of a constellation or population of universes, not parallel universes. Though of course it is interesting in its own right, it's of no particular practical or philosophical consequence.
One significant implication is that it provides a scientific answer to the folks who want to believe in intelligent design. Intelligent design proponents ask "why is the universe created so that it has just the right conditions for life?" and then suggest it cannot be random and that a higher power must have created it all. If science can prove parallel universes with random properties exist then the existence of our universe is the product of one universe out of countless others being randomly created.
The Best of all possible worlds.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2015, 11:15:20 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2015, 10:58:40 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 26, 2015, 10:11:14 PM
If I read the article correctly, this is more like the idea of a constellation or population of universes, not parallel universes. Though of course it is interesting in its own right, it's of no particular practical or philosophical consequence.
One significant implication is that it provides a scientific answer to the folks who want to believe in intelligent design. Intelligent design proponents ask "why is the universe created so that it has just the right conditions for life?" and then suggest it cannot be random and that a higher power must have created it all. If science can prove parallel universes with random properties exist then the existence of our universe is the product of one universe out of countless others being randomly created.
The Best of all possible worlds.
Exactly, no need to create a God for a universe that is created randomly.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2015, 11:18:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2015, 11:15:20 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2015, 10:58:40 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 26, 2015, 10:11:14 PM
If I read the article correctly, this is more like the idea of a constellation or population of universes, not parallel universes. Though of course it is interesting in its own right, it's of no particular practical or philosophical consequence.
One significant implication is that it provides a scientific answer to the folks who want to believe in intelligent design. Intelligent design proponents ask "why is the universe created so that it has just the right conditions for life?" and then suggest it cannot be random and that a higher power must have created it all. If science can prove parallel universes with random properties exist then the existence of our universe is the product of one universe out of countless others being randomly created.
The Best of all possible worlds.
Exactly, no need to create a God for a universe that is created randomly.
Are you threatened by this? The idea of "Best of all possible worlds", predates quantum physics, it's really more of a theodicy thing.
That's okay. If CC gets too cocky after disproving Intelligent Design, we can always scare the piss out of him by talking about ocean acidification.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2015, 11:55:12 AM
we can always scare the piss out of him by talking about ocean acidification.
Bastard
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2015, 11:34:20 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2015, 11:18:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2015, 11:15:20 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2015, 10:58:40 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on March 26, 2015, 10:11:14 PM
If I read the article correctly, this is more like the idea of a constellation or population of universes, not parallel universes. Though of course it is interesting in its own right, it's of no particular practical or philosophical consequence.
One significant implication is that it provides a scientific answer to the folks who want to believe in intelligent design. Intelligent design proponents ask "why is the universe created so that it has just the right conditions for life?" and then suggest it cannot be random and that a higher power must have created it all. If science can prove parallel universes with random properties exist then the existence of our universe is the product of one universe out of countless others being randomly created.
The Best of all possible worlds.
Exactly, no need to create a God for a universe that is created randomly.
Are you threatened by this? The idea of "Best of all possible worlds", predates quantum physics, it's really more of a theodicy thing.
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you understood the science. :contract:
I did not extend the same privilege in a discussion about theology.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2015, 01:23:10 PM
I did not extend the same privilege in a discussion about theology.
And this is probably the way it will go. Physics has reached a point that it is difficult for most people to understand and so the results will be easy to ignore.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2015, 10:58:40 AM
If science can prove parallel universes with random properties exist then the existence of our universe is the product of one universe out of countless others being randomly created.
Nonsense. God created this to test our Faith.
Actually that has become the norm with theology as well. Most people have a very poor grasp of it. For instance, the concept of "intelligent design", is a philosophical idea that tends to get thrown in with "creationism" by the poorly informed who often characterized these two distinct concepts with the same phrase "GOD DID IT".
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2015, 01:43:31 PM
Actually that has become the norm with theology as well. Most people have a very poor grasp of it. For instance, the concept of "intelligent design", is a philosophical idea that tends to get thrown in with "creationism" by the poorly informed who often characterized these two distinct concepts with the same phrase "GOD DID IT".
Wait so you are telling me poorly informed people are sometimes wrong about things they are poorly informed about? Fascinating.
I would be interested to hear what you regard as the distinctions, actually.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2015, 02:41:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2015, 01:43:31 PM
Actually that has become the norm with theology as well. Most people have a very poor grasp of it. For instance, the concept of "intelligent design", is a philosophical idea that tends to get thrown in with "creationism" by the poorly informed who often characterized these two distinct concepts with the same phrase "GOD DID IT".
Wait so you are telling me poorly informed people are sometimes wrong about things they are poorly informed about? Fascinating.
I would be interested to hear what you regard as the distinctions, actually.
For one, ID doesn't reject evolution.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2015, 03:18:56 PM
For one, ID doesn't reject evolution.
Yes my understanding was that ID just took science as proof of God since only God could have designed the world so perfectly. Which is fine but since it does not really add or subtract anything current science, it sounded like a theological concept. Pretty harmless, I am not sure why it upsets people. But then I was interested to know what Raz thought since he seemed to feel strongly about it.
I see where Raz is coming from. I've seen quite a bit of Evangelical Atheists addressing Intelligent Design proponents as if they were evolution deniers.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2015, 03:24:42 PM
I see where Raz is coming from. I've seen quite a bit of Evangelical Atheists addressing Intelligent Design proponents as if they were evolution deniers.
Some of these new Atheists types just indicate to me that, sadly, the problem is not religion (even super crazy ones) so much as people. I mean insular anti-theist cults? We are all doomed.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2015, 03:22:49 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 27, 2015, 03:18:56 PM
For one, ID doesn't reject evolution.
Yes my understanding was that ID just took science as proof of God since only God could have designed the world so perfectly. Which is fine but since it does not really add or subtract anything current science, it sounded like a theological concept. Pretty harmless, I am not sure why it upsets people. But then I was interested to know what Raz thought since he seemed to feel strongly about it.
It's not a scientific concept. It's a philosophical one. And Derspeiss is correct, many people conflate the two, even on this board. Creationism attempts to rebut science, intelligent design does no such thing.
Intelligent Design is retarded, and retarded is enough.
Quote from: The Brain on March 27, 2015, 04:57:31 PM
Intelligent Design is retarded, and retarded is enough.
That term is no longer PC, how about we use some other word? Some choices: stupid and moronic.
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 27, 2015, 05:23:51 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 27, 2015, 04:57:31 PM
Intelligent Design is retarded, and retarded is enough.
That term is no longer PC, how about we use some other word? Some choices: stupid and moronic.
:mad: Speak for yourself.
LOL
Quote from: The Brain on March 27, 2015, 04:57:31 PM
Intelligent Design is retarded, and retarded is enough.
And to a person who belches predigested phrases like "Sky Fairies" at every opportunity, clear distinctions are meaningless.
Raz is a true defender of the faith. Which faith I am not sure.
Raz is a good man, hating Athiests is the right thing to do.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2015, 08:48:30 PM
Quote from: The Brain on March 27, 2015, 04:57:31 PM
Intelligent Design is retarded, and retarded is enough.
And to a person who belches predigested phrases like "Sky Fairies" at every opportunity, clear distinctions are meaningless.
These days I normally use "Sky Santa", but I guess the distinction is lost on you people.
Quote from: The Brain on March 28, 2015, 04:15:57 AM
These days I normally use "Sky Santa", but I guess the distinction is lost on you people.
Sounds like you're getting a lump of coal.
Intelligent Design is another face of the "god of gaps" - as all the previous fairy tales of the religulous are no longer sustainable, they had to come up with a new one.
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2015, 04:24:49 AM
Intelligent Design is another face of the "god of gaps" - as all the previous fairy tales of the religulous are no longer sustainable, they had to come up with a new one.
As it predates science, no that this not true.
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2015, 04:24:49 AM
Intelligent Design is another face of the "god of gaps" - as all the previous fairy tales of the religulous are no longer sustainable, they had to come up with a new one.
Exactly. It is the attempt by the True Believers to adopt the pretense of scientific thought in order to circumvent the consequences of scientific thought. It replaces the idea that the world we perceive is a trap set by the devil with the idea that what we perceive is true but misunderstood. that science "properly done" results in evidence of the existence of gods.
By the way, is anyone else constantly misreading it as "large hardon collider"?
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2015, 04:24:49 AM
Intelligent Design is another face of the "god of gaps" - as all the previous fairy tales of the religulous are no longer sustainable, they had to come up with a new one.
Almost everything of human existence is fairy tales. The point is to get good fairy tales that are harmless. Easier said than done, but I have a hard time seeing anything too dangerous about intelligent design. Not that I would be too surprised if there was something dangerous about it, it is hard to find a concept innocuous enough that deranged people cannot be deranged with it.
Quote from: Valmy on March 28, 2015, 01:58:12 PM
Almost everything of human existence is fairy tales.
Do you really believe this, or is this just more emo over-reaction? Because to argue that computer programs, or paleontology, or string theory is "fairy tales" is to argue complete crap.
QuoteThe point is to get good fairy tales that are harmless. Easier said than done, but I have a hard time seeing anything too dangerous about intelligent design. Not that I would be too surprised if there was something dangerous about it, it is hard to find a concept innocuous enough that deranged people cannot be deranged with it.
I have no idea why we want "harmless" fairy tales, or even how to tell when a "fairy tale" does us harm. Intelligent Design theory is a con, designed to fool people who aren't really aware of what science is into thinking that ID is a scientific idea. Now, I suppose it could be argued that idiots will believe idiotic things, and ID is no more idiotic than any other brand of creationism, but I think ID is a more pernicious brand of fraud than typical creationism, because most creationists just reject the idea of using the scientific method to resolve metaphysical questions; they don't fraudulently pretend to be
using scientific methods.
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2015, 12:08:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2015, 04:24:49 AM
Intelligent Design is another face of the "god of gaps" - as all the previous fairy tales of the religulous are no longer sustainable, they had to come up with a new one.
Exactly. It is the attempt by the True Believers to adopt the pretense of scientific thought in order to circumvent the consequences of scientific thought. It replaces the idea that the world we perceive is a trap set by the devil with the idea that what we perceive is true but misunderstood. that science "properly done" results in evidence of the existence of gods.
"God in the Gaps" doesn't mean what you think it means. But then you are agreeing with Marty.
The God of the Gap talks like a valley girl. For sure.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 28, 2015, 02:48:18 PM
The God of the Gap talks like a valley girl. For sure.
I think you and raz are referring to the gap as in a place to shop. Not the same thing. I don't think.
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2015, 01:53:22 PM
By the way, is anyone else constantly misreading it as "large hardon collider"?
I'm not gay, so no.
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2015, 02:31:11 PM
Do you really believe this, or is this just more emo over-reaction?
Yes. It is one of the things I enjoy most about being human. We sure put alot of emphasis on things that, really, are pretty meaningless. But it is our nature to see meaning everywhere. Not sure why that is emo, I think you are projecting something that is not there.
QuoteBecause to argue that computer programs, or paleontology, or string theory is "fairy tales" is to argue complete crap.
Ok? Even to the extent those things are or are not "fairy tales" those things are not like most things in human existence. Most of us do not naturally think in zeroes and ones. String theory and paleontology are pretty outside most people's existence. On the other hand, my god do all these things get used to fuel irrational fantasies. I find the mystical thinking that comes out of things like Quantum theory rather hilarious. It is just what we do, and I sort of enjoy being a participant in that. Probably because I am as crazy as everybody else.
I am a little surprised about your reaction here since you yourself make this point all the time, when talking about things like race and so forth. Well guess what is a bigger factor in human experience in this country? Race is far bigger of a deal than string theory, and it is based on nothing but fairy tales. But wow it is a huge part of the human experience these days.
Quote from: grumbler on March 28, 2015, 02:31:11 PM
I have no idea why we want "harmless" fairy tales, or even how to tell when a "fairy tale" does us harm.
Because people are irrational, and more than that they are drawn to irrationality. So best to find irrational things that do not encourage anti-social values.
QuoteIntelligent Design theory is a con, designed to fool people who aren't really aware of what science is into thinking that ID is a scientific idea. Now, I suppose it could be argued that idiots will believe idiotic things, and ID is no more idiotic than any other brand of creationism, but I think ID is a more pernicious brand of fraud than typical creationism, because most creationists just reject the idea of using the scientific method to resolve metaphysical questions; they don't fraudulently pretend to be using scientific methods.
It may be a con, or it may be in earnest by people who want to be engaged in science and also keep their religious stuff. Or maybe both. And it is just a 'fairy tale' that only idiots believe this stuff, unfortunately. Irrational thinking is hardly absent from very intelligent people.
Quote from: 11B4V on March 29, 2015, 01:05:48 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 28, 2015, 01:53:22 PM
By the way, is anyone else constantly misreading it as "large hardon collider"?
I'm not gay, so no.
You are not?
Weird. I always thought you were.
Not that there is anything bad with not being gay.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2015, 09:09:32 AM
Yes. It is one of the things I enjoy most about being human. We sure put alot of emphasis on things that, really, are pretty meaningless. But it is our nature to see meaning everywhere. Not sure why that is emo, I think you are projecting something that is not there.
I guess whatever group you belong to that sees meaning everywhere is inclined to believe that they are also representative of everyone. Can't hold your nature against you, I guess, but I can ask you not to generalize from yourself to all humans.
QuoteOk? Even to the extent those things are or are not "fairy tales" those things are not like most things in human existence.
Ah, the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Haven't seen that one trotted out here in a coupla weeks.
QuoteI am a little surprised about your reaction here since you yourself make this point all the time, when talking about things like race and so forth. Well guess what is a bigger factor in human experience in this country? Race is far bigger of a deal than string theory, and it is based on nothing but fairy tales. But wow it is a huge part of the human experience these days.
I make specific statements about the mythology of race, rather than sweeping generalizations about "almost everything of human existence" and drawing incomprehensible conclusions like how "the point is to get good fairy tales that are harmless." Racism is a fairly recent phenomenon in human history; the reason why there is so much debate over whether historical figures X or Y were "black" is that none of their contemporaries mentioned the "race" of X or Y because they didn't have the concept.
The "conflict" between Science and Religion is an old canard invneted by the left. There is no conflict. Most scientists were religious until recently, when the left took control of the educational system. How many scientists were burnt at the stake for scientific believes? How many? One? Giordan Bruno, who was burnt for being a member of what the Catholic church at the time considered an heresy, not exactly for science, but hey, science need heros and martyrs too.
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 10:12:26 AM
How many scientists were burnt at the stake for scientific believes? How many? One? Giordan Bruno, who was burnt for being a member of what the Catholic church at the time considered an heresy, not exactly for science, but hey, science need heros and martyrs too.
That is something that I find annoying as well. I have certainly heard the anti-Theist going off on the 'thousands' of scientists religions have burned at the stake. Just shows that you do not need religion to believe in 'fairy tales'.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2015, 09:53:04 AM
Because people are I am irrational, and more than that they are I am drawn to irrationality. So best to find irrational things that do not encourage anti-social values.
Fixed that for you. The Romantic Era has been over for some 150 years.
QuoteIt may be a con, or it may be in earnest by people who want to be engaged in science and also keep their religious stuff. Or maybe both. And it is just a 'fairy tale' that only idiots believe this stuff, unfortunately. Irrational thinking is hardly absent from very intelligent people.
No one can pretend to be "involved in science" who follows ID doctrines, because ID doesn't use the scientific method. It simply calls itself "scientific" as part of the fraud. There is no conflict between people who want to "keep their religious stuff" and true science; religion only needs to engage in fraud when it wants to usurp the role of science in explaining the everyday world. As far as irrationality being a feature of "intelligent" people, I don't buy it. Irrational behavior is clearly counter-survival, and intelligent people want to survive.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2015, 10:14:32 AM
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 10:12:26 AM
How many scientists were burnt at the stake for scientific believes? How many? One? Giordan Bruno, who was burnt for being a member of what the Catholic church at the time considered an heresy, not exactly for science, but hey, science need heros and martyrs too.
That is something that I find annoying as well. I have certainly heard the anti-Theist going off on the 'thousands' of scientists religions have burned at the stake. Just shows that you do not need religion to believe in 'fairy tales'.
Ah, is the Giordano Bruno myth the new "fairy tale?" Or is the new "fairy tale" that there is a significant number of people "going off on the 'thousands' of scientists religions have burned at the stake?" I am having trouble sorting out what is just being made up as a "fairy tale" for this thread, and what is being proposed as serious (maybe even "good") fairy tales.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 10:19:05 AM
Fixed that for you. The Romantic Era has been over for some 150 years.
I certainly am speaking for myself here. I never claimed to be exceptional.
QuoteAs far as irrationality being a feature of "intelligent" people, I don't buy it.
It is a feature of all people. Intelligent people do not seem to be particularly immune. Let me just remind you that one of my favorite periods in history is the French Revolution where brilliant and rational people all showed how insane they can be.
QuoteIrrational behavior is clearly counter-survival, and intelligent people want to survive.
Everybody wants to survive. So?
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 10:23:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2015, 10:14:32 AM
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 10:12:26 AM
How many scientists were burnt at the stake for scientific believes? How many? One? Giordan Bruno, who was burnt for being a member of what the Catholic church at the time considered an heresy, not exactly for science, but hey, science need heros and martyrs too.
That is something that I find annoying as well. I have certainly heard the anti-Theist going off on the 'thousands' of scientists religions have burned at the stake. Just shows that you do not need religion to believe in 'fairy tales'.
Ah, is the Giordano Bruno myth the new "fairy tale?" Or is the new "fairy tale" that there is a significant number of people "going off on the 'thousands' of scientists religions have burned at the stake?" I am having trouble sorting out what is just being made up as a "fairy tale" for this thread, and what is being proposed as serious (maybe even "good") fairy tales.
He wasn't a scientist. He was a wizard.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 10:23:57 AM
Ah, is the Giordano Bruno myth the new "fairy tale?" Or is the new "fairy tale" that there is a significant number of people "going off on the 'thousands' of scientists religions have burned at the stake?"
There is a new fairy tale? :unsure: Well if there is one and it is new I never claimed to know what it was.
QuoteI am having trouble sorting out what is just being made up as a "fairy tale" for this thread, and what is being proposed as serious (maybe even "good") fairy tales.
I am having a hard time wondering where you got this distinction. I said people are irrational so it is beneficial to find irrational things that do not lead to anti-social behaviors, but man that is hard to find. I am not sure where the 'serious' or 'good' or 'just being made up' distinction is coming from.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2015, 10:25:34 AM
It is a feature of all people. Intelligent people do not seem to be particularly immune. Let me just remind you that one of my favorite periods in history is the French Revolution where brilliant and rational people all showed how insane they can be.
The argument that irrationality is "a feature of all people" is meaningless noise. It certainly isn't a dominant feature of all people. Your reminder is a silly and irrelevant one. What period of history is your favorite has no bearing on the argument, and no one who has actually studied the French Revolution would argue that it was full of "brilliant and rational people" engaged in "show[ing] how insane they can be."
QuoteEverybody wants to survive. So?
So your assertion is silly.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 10:38:30 AM
The argument that irrationality is "a feature of all people" is meaningless noise.
I think it is a pretty obvious one. People are drawn to mystical thinking. I think this is a helpful thing to keep in mind. I mean people even try to get people interested in science by how magical and mind blowing it all seems rather than the joy of rational observation. That is a hard sell.
QuoteIt certainly isn't a dominant feature of all people. Your reminder is a silly and irrelevant one. What period of history is your favorite has no bearing on the argument, and no one who has actually studied the French Revolution would argue that it was full of "brilliant and rational people" engaged in "show[ing] how insane they can be."
We last I checked I am a person who studied it. I am pretty sure others have commented on this as well. But whatever, if it is not the case just saying it was not is not convincing to me.
Quote
So your assertion is silly.
Well I disagree.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2015, 10:33:00 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 10:23:57 AM
Ah, is the Giordano Bruno myth the new "fairy tale?" Or is the new "fairy tale" that there is a significant number of people "going off on the 'thousands' of scientists religions have burned at the stake?"
There is a new fairy tale? :unsure: Well if there is one and it is new I never claimed to know what it was.
I've never seen any evidence that any significant number of people claim that thousands of scientists have been burned at the stake by "religions." That sounds like a "fairy tale," and a new one.
QuoteI am having a hard time wondering where you got this distinction. I said people are irrational so it is beneficial to find irrational things that do not lead to anti-social behaviors, but man that is hard to find. I am not sure where the 'serious' or 'good' or 'just being made up' distinction is coming from.
If you are inventing what you earlier called "good fairy tales" (meaning, I assume that they don't result in "anti-social behaviors"), then you must "seriously" want people to believe them (though for "irrational" reasons since "people are irrational"). Obviously, such invented fairy tales are "just made up." I simply can't distinguish which ones you have "just made up" for this thread (like I presume, the "insane French Revolution") and which ones you are merely repeating, and I simply haven't heard before.
If Grumbler was forced to debate Grumbler, would he ignore himself? Discuss.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2015, 10:49:03 AM
I think it is a pretty obvious one. People are drawn to mystical thinking. I think this is a helpful thing to keep in mind. I mean people even try to get people interested in science by how magical and mind blowing it all seems rather than the joy of rational observation. That is a hard sell.
Again, mere argument by assertion. I don't think that people are drawn to mystical thinking at all. I think they engage in it when confused or when the alternative threatens their egocentric belief in their own centrality to existence, but I think that people generally do the opposite of what you argue, and that they are drawn to logical explanations rather than irrational ones. Almost no one believes that rain is the tears of the gods, or that leprosy is a punishment for immoral behavior. If you were correct, the irrational explanations for those things would be far more popular than the rational ones.
And I have never seen anyone trying to sell science as "magical." "Mind-blowing," yeah, because that's why scientists
do science. They do the observations to feed their mind-blowing theories, not for "the joy of rational observation" (which, i think, is a joy that you just invented! :P).
QuoteWe last I checked I am a person who studied it. I am pretty sure others have commented on this as well. But whatever, if it is not the case just saying it was not is not convincing to me.
The last time I checked, what historical period you claim to have studied gave you no special ability to determine when people are "insane." Simply calling behavior "insane" because you don't understand it (even though you claim to have studied it) is about as unconvincing as an argument can get.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2015, 11:01:13 AM
If Grumbler was forced to debate Grumbler, would he ignore himself? Discuss.
I will respond to you so we can hear his response.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2015, 03:33:46 PM
It's not a scientific concept. It's a philosophical one.
It's neither.
It's a legal concept, devised to circumvent the Establishment Clause.
Oh shit, a Minsky attack.
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 12:50:02 PM
Oh shit, a Minsky attack.
More of a Minsky defense against silliness.
My posts calling Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute deliberate frauds were attacks.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 01:03:09 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 12:50:02 PM
Oh shit, a Minsky attack.
More of a Minsky defense against silliness.
My posts calling Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute deliberate frauds were attacks.
Why? People have the right to believe whatever they want, as long as it does not infringes on their neighbour's freedoms.
I believe the world was created 5775 years ago. This might sound silly to you, but i don't force you to believe in my silliness, so stop forcing YOUR silliness on the rest of us.
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 01:08:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 01:03:09 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 12:50:02 PM
Oh shit, a Minsky attack.
More of a Minsky defense against silliness.
My posts calling Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute deliberate frauds were attacks.
Why? People have the right to believe whatever they want, as long as it does not infringes on their neighbour's freedoms.
I believe the world was created 5775 years ago. This might sound silly to you, but i don't force you to believe in my silliness, so stop forcing YOUR silliness on the rest of us.
Why do you insist on foisting your ideas on the rest of us? We are free to believe as we wish, in this country. If you don't like that, find another country, 'cause we're not going to change.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 01:11:39 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 01:08:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 01:03:09 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 12:50:02 PM
Oh shit, a Minsky attack.
More of a Minsky defense against silliness.
My posts calling Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute deliberate frauds were attacks.
Why? People have the right to believe whatever they want, as long as it does not infringes on their neighbour's freedoms.
I believe the world was created 5775 years ago. This might sound silly to you, but i don't force you to believe in my silliness, so stop forcing YOUR silliness on the rest of us.
Why do you insist on foisting your ideas on the rest of us? We are free to believe as we wish, in this country. If you don't like that, find another country, 'cause we're not going to change.
[yiddish accent] STRAWMAN!!!!111111 [/yiddish accent]
When have I ever tried to convince anyone of any religious believe I have?
Nevah, in my whole friggin Languish Life (tm).
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 01:08:29 PM
Why? People have the right to believe whatever they want, as long as it does not infringes on their neighbour's freedoms.
I believe the world was created 5775 years ago. This might sound silly to you, but i don't force you to believe in my silliness, so stop forcing YOUR silliness on the rest of us.
Not questioning your belief.
But that belief is Creationism - the belief that God created the world at a particular instance in time. Perfectly fine to believe in. But the Supreme Court ruled back in the 80s that it couldn't be taught in the public schools.
"Intelligent Design" is a concept put together by lawyers and their consultants in an effort to get around the Supreme Court decision. It is not a "philosophical concept" -- it has no real content outside of its potential use as a convenient euphemism and legal strategy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 30, 2015, 01:26:10 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 01:08:29 PM
Why? People have the right to believe whatever they want, as long as it does not infringes on their neighbour's freedoms.
I believe the world was created 5775 years ago. This might sound silly to you, but i don't force you to believe in my silliness, so stop forcing YOUR silliness on the rest of us.
Not questioning your belief.
But that belief is Creationism - the belief that God created the world at a particular instance in time. Perfectly fine to believe in. But the Supreme Court ruled back in the 80s that it couldn't be taught in the public schools.
"Intelligent Design" is a concept put together by lawyers and their consultants in an effort to get around the Supreme Court decision. It is not a "philosophical concept" -- it has no real content outside of its potential use as a convenient euphemism and legal strategy.
Are you saying in that instance the lawyers provided the design and the consultants, the intelligence?
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 01:14:25 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 01:11:39 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 01:08:29 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 01:03:09 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 12:50:02 PM
Oh shit, a Minsky attack.
More of a Minsky defense against silliness.
My posts calling Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute deliberate frauds were attacks.
Why? People have the right to believe whatever they want, as long as it does not infringes on their neighbour's freedoms.
I believe the world was created 5775 years ago. This might sound silly to you, but i don't force you to believe in my silliness, so stop forcing YOUR silliness on the rest of us.
Why do you insist on foisting your ideas on the rest of us? We are free to believe as we wish, in this country. If you don't like that, find another country, 'cause we're not going to change.
[yiddish accent] STRAWMAN!!!!111111 [/yiddish accent]
When have I ever tried to convince anyone of any religious believe I have?
Nevah, in my whole friggin Languish Life (tm).
Waitamminit; you can freely and falsely accuse me, but I can't return the favor? That's [yiddish accent] bullshit [/yiddish accent].
And your "Discovery Institute" is still a fraud, and still trying to tell me what religion to teach in my school.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 30, 2015, 01:26:10 PM
Not questioning your belief.
But that belief is Creationism - the belief that God created the world at a particular instance in time. Perfectly fine to believe in. But the Supreme Court ruled back in the 80s that it couldn't be taught in the public schools.
"Intelligent Design" is a concept put together by lawyers and their consultants in an effort to get around the Supreme Court decision. It is not a "philosophical concept" -- it has no real content outside of its potential use as a convenient euphemism and legal strategy.
Exactly. The lie that they propose includes the fraud that there is a "scientific theory known as intelligent design" http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/ (http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/)
Now, they cutely state later in the FAQ that "Intelligent design (ID) is a
scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by
other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." So, in other words, they are really dodging any claim that it is a scientific theory in accordance with actual science, but by claiming the existence of something called "the historical sciences" they perpetuate the fraud that ID is a "scientific theory."
Never, in their fraudulent descriptions of what the "scientific method" is, do they concede that the purpose of experimentation is to
disprove a hypothesis or theory. Because, of course, their fraudulent claims to using the "scientific method" are based on the fraudulent claim that the scientific method consists only of observing, hypothesizing, experimentation by "examin[ing] biological structures to test if high CSI exists" as predicted, and, if they conclude that it does, then conclude that "because they exhibit high levels of CSI, a quality known to be produced only by intelligent design, and because there is no other known mechanism to explain the origin of these "irreducibly complex" biological structures, we conclude that they were intelligently designed." That's not science at all. That's fraud.
Further, it is fraud so patently fraudulent that only the ignorant or willfully stupid could fall for it hook, raz, and sinker.
I thought the phrase was "hook, line, and sinker"? :hmm:
That reminds me, I need to renew my fishing license.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 30, 2015, 12:21:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 27, 2015, 03:33:46 PM
It's not a scientific concept. It's a philosophical one.
It's neither.
It's a legal concept, devised to circumvent the Establishment Clause.
Sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill?
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 01:08:29 PM
I believe the world was created 5775 years ago. This might sound silly to you,
No, it makes perfect sense. :)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 30, 2015, 01:26:10 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 01:08:29 PM
Why? People have the right to believe whatever they want, as long as it does not infringes on their neighbour's freedoms.
I believe the world was created 5775 years ago. This might sound silly to you, but i don't force you to believe in my silliness, so stop forcing YOUR silliness on the rest of us.
Not questioning your belief.
But that belief is Creationism - the belief that God created the world at a particular instance in time. Perfectly fine to believe in. But the Supreme Court ruled back in the 80s that it couldn't be taught in the public schools.
"Intelligent Design" is a concept put together by lawyers and their consultants in an effort to get around the Supreme Court decision. It is not a "philosophical concept" -- it has no real content outside of its potential use as a convenient euphemism and legal strategy.
I was under the impression that Intelligent design is the old watchmaker's argument.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2015, 03:25:56 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 30, 2015, 01:26:10 PM
Quote from: Siege on March 30, 2015, 01:08:29 PM
Why? People have the right to believe whatever they want, as long as it does not infringes on their neighbour's freedoms.
I believe the world was created 5775 years ago. This might sound silly to you, but i don't force you to believe in my silliness, so stop forcing YOUR silliness on the rest of us.
Not questioning your belief.
But that belief is Creationism - the belief that God created the world at a particular instance in time. Perfectly fine to believe in. But the Supreme Court ruled back in the 80s that it couldn't be taught in the public schools.
"Intelligent Design" is a concept put together by lawyers and their consultants in an effort to get around the Supreme Court decision. It is not a "philosophical concept" -- it has no real content outside of its potential use as a convenient euphemism and legal strategy.
I was under the impression that Intelligent design is the old watchmaker's argument.
Prior to the US Courts wading into the fray, the big dvide among creationists was between "young earth creationists" and the rest. The young-earthers are those who take the Biblical timeline literally - that the Earth was created some 5,000 or so years ago, the whole bit. The others differ, but it is perfectly possible for (say) a creationist of the non-young-earth variety to not oppose evolution - just stating that god (say) ultimately created the universe and its laws, so as to end up with humanity ("theistic evolution"). God created evolution! :D
The "watchmaker's argument" is that the observed complexity of life presumes a creator, and is consistent with most varieties of creationism.
Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2015, 03:55:32 PM
God created evolution! :D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prairiefirenewspaper.com%2Ffiles%2F200808-thank-god-for-evolution-michael-dowd.gif&hash=5571d559d97826d67130a6f11f0c65ca71e0e417)
It will transform your world -_-
What about his life?!
Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2015, 03:55:32 PM
The "watchmaker's argument" is that the observed complexity of life presumes a creator, and is consistent with most varieties of creationism.
Actually, the "watchmaker god" argument didn't proceed from the
complexity of the creation (
per se) so much as from its existence. It was an argument about the unknowability of the nature of god from the observation of the universe: one could presume, upon finding a watch on the street, that there must have been a watchmaker, but one cannot say anything further about the watchmaker just from finding the watch.
As you say, it is consistent with most varieties of creationism, but was about Deism rather than creationism. It bears no real resemblance to intelligent design, though a lot of ID writers like to claim both that ID is a scientific theory
and that it predates science (some tracing it back to the watchmaker god theory, others to Plato). The biggest difference is that there is nothing fraudulent about the watchmaker god argument.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2015, 04:00:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2015, 03:55:32 PM
God created evolution! :D
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prairiefirenewspaper.com%2Ffiles%2F200808-thank-god-for-evolution-michael-dowd.gif&hash=5571d559d97826d67130a6f11f0c65ca71e0e417)
It will transform your world -_-
Unless your religion is Buddhism or one of the other non-theistic religions. :P
/fundamentalist/ Marriage is only between a Man and a Woman /fundamentalist/
Quote from: Razgovory on March 30, 2015, 03:25:56 PM
I was under the impression that Intelligent design is the old watchmaker's argument.
According to the ID people, the theory is that "certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause." That is a phrase that has all the hallmarks of being put together by a committee. In fact, assuming one can give meaningful content to the words "intelligent cause," it is essentially a truism - e.g. the Empire State Building is a feature of the universe and in some sense can be said to have an intelligent cause.
The ID people also are adamant that its a scientific theory and not just a philosophical proposition.
So why? Why not stake out a real claim like: A Being or Entity willed the universe into existence. And concede that it might not be a scientific claim strictly speaking?
Because then you have something that under US law probably can't be taught in public schools.
That's why you have a theory that claims to be "scientific" (so it can be taught as science in school) and that is vague and amorphous enough that one can plausibly argue it has nothing to do creationism or religious belief.
As a scientific or philosophical position it is meaningless mush, but as a lawyer's stratagem, it's got some legs, at least if you can fool some of the people some of the time.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 04:27:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2015, 03:55:32 PM
The "watchmaker's argument" is that the observed complexity of life presumes a creator, and is consistent with most varieties of creationism.
Actually, the "watchmaker god" argument didn't proceed from the complexity of the creation (per se) so much as from its existence. It was an argument about the unknowability of the nature of god from the observation of the universe: one could presume, upon finding a watch on the street, that there must have been a watchmaker, but one cannot say anything further about the watchmaker just from finding the watch.
As you say, it is consistent with most varieties of creationism, but was about Deism rather than creationism. It bears no real resemblance to intelligent design, though a lot of ID writers like to claim both that ID is a scientific theory and that it predates science (some tracing it back to the watchmaker god theory, others to Plato). The biggest difference is that there is nothing fraudulent about the watchmaker god argument.
Sure, but the reason the existence of a watch presumes a maker is that it is complex. Such a 'functionaly complex' object could never have arisen without a designer; as the world, and life, is even more complex, it too must have a designer.
QuoteThough often confused with the argument from simple analogy, the watchmaker argument from William Paley is a more sophisticated design argument that attempts to avoid Hume's objection to the analogy between worlds and artifacts. Instead of simply asserting a similarity between the material world and some human artifact, Paley's argument proceeds by identifying what he takes to be a reliable indicator of intelligent design:
S]uppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think ... that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?... For this reason, and for no other; namely, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it (Paley 1867, 1).
There are thus two features of a watch that reliably indicate that it is the result of an intelligent design. First, it performs some function that an intelligent agent would regard as valuable; the fact that the watch performs the function of keeping time is something that has value to an intelligent agent. Second, the watch could not perform this function if its parts and mechanisms were differently sized or arranged; the fact that the ability of a watch to keep time depends on the precise shape, size, and arrangement of its parts suggests that the watch has these characteristics because some intelligent agency designed it to these specifications. Taken together, these two characteristics endow the watch with a functional complexity that reliably distinguishes objects that have intelligent designers from objects that do not.
Paley then goes on to argue that the material universe exhibits the same kind of functional complexity as a watch:
Every indicator of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. I mean that the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art, in the complexity, subtilty, and curiosity of the mechanism; and still more, if possible, do they go beyond them in number and variety; yet in a multitude of cases, are not less evidently mechanical, not less evidently contrivances, not less evidently accommodated to their end, or suited to their office, than are the most perfect productions of human ingenuity (Paley 1867, 13).
Since the works of nature possess functional complexity, a reliable indicator of intelligent design, we can justifiably conclude that these works were created by an intelligent agent who designed them to instantiate this property.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/
Note that "intelligent design" here is without capitals - "Intelligent Design" is a modern movement.
And that is why I pointed out earlier that the work at CERN may put an end to the argument that the "design" of the universe can be inferred to be created by some intelligence. If the CERN observations demonstrate the existence of other parallel universes with random properties then the fact this one universe has the properties required for life is nothing more than chance.
Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2015, 05:43:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 04:27:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 30, 2015, 03:55:32 PM
The "watchmaker's argument" is that the observed complexity of life presumes a creator, and is consistent with most varieties of creationism.
Actually, the "watchmaker god" argument didn't proceed from the complexity of the creation (per se) so much as from its existence. It was an argument about the unknowability of the nature of god from the observation of the universe: one could presume, upon finding a watch on the street, that there must have been a watchmaker, but one cannot say anything further about the watchmaker just from finding the watch.
As you say, it is consistent with most varieties of creationism, but was about Deism rather than creationism. It bears no real resemblance to intelligent design, though a lot of ID writers like to claim both that ID is a scientific theory and that it predates science (some tracing it back to the watchmaker god theory, others to Plato). The biggest difference is that there is nothing fraudulent about the watchmaker god argument.
Sure, but the reason the existence of a watch presumes a maker is that it is complex. Such a 'functionaly complex' object could never have arisen without a designer; as the world, and life, is even more complex, it too must have a designer.
QuoteThough often confused with the argument from simple analogy, the watchmaker argument from William Paley is a more sophisticated design argument that attempts to avoid Hume's objection to the analogy between worlds and artifacts. Instead of simply asserting a similarity between the material world and some human artifact, Paley's argument proceeds by identifying what he takes to be a reliable indicator of intelligent design:
S]uppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think ... that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?... For this reason, and for no other; namely, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it (Paley 1867, 1).
There are thus two features of a watch that reliably indicate that it is the result of an intelligent design. First, it performs some function that an intelligent agent would regard as valuable; the fact that the watch performs the function of keeping time is something that has value to an intelligent agent. Second, the watch could not perform this function if its parts and mechanisms were differently sized or arranged; the fact that the ability of a watch to keep time depends on the precise shape, size, and arrangement of its parts suggests that the watch has these characteristics because some intelligent agency designed it to these specifications. Taken together, these two characteristics endow the watch with a functional complexity that reliably distinguishes objects that have intelligent designers from objects that do not.
Paley then goes on to argue that the material universe exhibits the same kind of functional complexity as a watch:
Every indicator of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. I mean that the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art, in the complexity, subtilty, and curiosity of the mechanism; and still more, if possible, do they go beyond them in number and variety; yet in a multitude of cases, are not less evidently mechanical, not less evidently contrivances, not less evidently accommodated to their end, or suited to their office, than are the most perfect productions of human ingenuity (Paley 1867, 13).
Since the works of nature possess functional complexity, a reliable indicator of intelligent design, we can justifiably conclude that these works were created by an intelligent agent who designed them to instantiate this property.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/
Note that "intelligent design" here is without capitals - "Intelligent Design" is a modern movement.
Yes, Paley's watchmaker analogy is one of the most quoted ones, and yet intellectually one of the very weakest. Newton used the concept before Paley, and so did Descartes and others. Hume, of course, demolished Paley's argument before Paley was even born.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 30, 2015, 06:00:30 PM
And that is why I pointed out earlier that the work at CERN may put an end to the argument that the "design" of the universe can be inferred to be created by some intelligence. If the CERN observations demonstrate the existence of other parallel universes with random properties then the fact this one universe has the properties required for life is nothing more than chance.
I don't think you understand the concept of "other universes" as used in this theory. The "other universes" would simply be in other dimensions than our own (and, if the theory is correct, wouldn't even be other "universes" because they could interact with this "universe" and thus simply be another part of the newly-expanded universe). They aren't "parallel" universes with different physical laws; such universes may exist but couldn't be detected (no information interaction between universes, by definition) and so will remain theoretical.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 06:02:30 PM
Yes, Paley's watchmaker analogy is one of the most quoted ones, and yet intellectually one of the very weakest. Newton used the concept before Paley, and so did Descartes and others. Hume, of course, demolished Paley's argument before Paley was even born.
Even as a kid I didn't find it very convincing; after all, if something as impressive as a watch required a maker, then presumably the maker of the watch, being even more impressive, required a maker as well ... it's makers all the way down. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 07:49:00 AM
Even as a kid I didn't find it very convincing; after all, if something as impressive as a watch required a maker, then presumably the maker of the watch, being even more impressive, required a maker as well ... it's makers all the way down. ;)
Wow you were a very insightful kid.
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 04:28:58 PM
Unless your religion is Buddhism or one of the other non-theistic religions. :P
Their worlds and lives will remain sadly untransformed :weep:
Scientifically pray for them brother grumbler.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 07:53:46 AM
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 07:49:00 AM
Even as a kid I didn't find it very convincing; after all, if something as impressive as a watch required a maker, then presumably the maker of the watch, being even more impressive, required a maker as well ... it's makers all the way down. ;)
Wow you were a very insightful kid.
Not really: the actual thought was more like 'if you need a god to make the universe, what do you need to make a god?' ;)
The Biblical creation myth never made any sense to me - having this god just sitting around in a big nothing, then getting bored and making stuff. Where did he come from?
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 07:58:29 AM
The Biblical creation myth never made any sense to me - having this god just sitting around in a big nothing, then getting bored and making stuff. Where did he come from?
That is the awesome unknowable mystery Malthus!
Of course the answer is he is co-eternal with his begotten son. Duh.
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 07:49:00 AM
Even as a kid I didn't find it very convincing; after all, if something as impressive as a watch required a maker, then presumably the maker of the watch, being even more impressive, required a maker as well ... it's makers all the way down. ;)
Plus, as Hume pointed out, a carrot is even more amazing than a watch, and yet you don't presume, when finding a carrot in a field, that someone must have created that carrot. Hell, you can grow a carrot yourself.
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 08:43:28 AM
Plus, as Hume pointed out, a carrot is even more amazing than a watch, and yet you don't presume, when finding a carrot in a field, that someone must have created that carrot. Hell, you can grow a carrot yourself.
Hume cut through nonsense like nobody else. Got to love him.
I guess CERN has not destroyed the world by creating a rift in the fabric of time and space yet?
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 31, 2015, 09:12:03 AM
I guess CERN has not destroyed the world by creating a rift in the fabric of time and space yet?
How would we know? Maybe it has destroyed one universe, and replaced it with another. :P
:hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 09:14:10 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 31, 2015, 09:12:03 AM
I guess CERN has not destroyed the world by creating a rift in the fabric of time and space yet?
How would we know? Maybe it has destroyed one universe, and replaced it with another. :P
That might be useful if ever the Vogons turn up. :P
Quote from: grumbler on March 30, 2015, 06:09:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 30, 2015, 06:00:30 PM
And that is why I pointed out earlier that the work at CERN may put an end to the argument that the "design" of the universe can be inferred to be created by some intelligence. If the CERN observations demonstrate the existence of other parallel universes with random properties then the fact this one universe has the properties required for life is nothing more than chance.
I don't think you understand the concept of "other universes" as used in this theory. The "other universes" would simply be in other dimensions than our own (and, if the theory is correct, wouldn't even be other "universes" because they could interact with this "universe" and thus simply be another part of the newly-expanded universe). They aren't "parallel" universes with different physical laws; such universes may exist but couldn't be detected (no information interaction between universes, by definition) and so will remain theoretical.
I am not sure what you base your assertion that the theory doesn't predict other universes which are parallel, separate and very different than ours. you are a little behind the times. Today you get to learn something.
QuoteNew Physics Complications Lend Support to Multiverse Hypothesis
Decades of confounding experiments have physicists considering a startling possibility: the universe might not make sense
June 1, 2013 |By Natalie Wolchover and Quanta Magazine
On an overcast afternoon in late April, physics professors and students crowded into a wood-paneled lecture hall at Columbia University for a talk by Nima Arkani-Hamed, a high-profile theorist visiting from the Institute for Advanced Study in nearby Princeton, N.J. With his dark, shoulder-length hair shoved behind his ears, Arkani-Hamed laid out the dual, seemingly contradictory implications of recent experimental results at the Large Hadron Collider in Europe.
"The universe is inevitable," he declared. "The universe is impossible."
The spectacular discovery of the Higgs boson in July 2012 confirmed a nearly 50-year-old theory of how elementary particles acquire mass, which enables them to form big structures such as galaxies and humans. "The fact that it was seen more or less where we expected to find it is a triumph for experiment, it's a triumph for theory, and it's an indication that physics works," Arkani-Hamed told the crowd.
However, in order for the Higgs boson to make sense with the mass (or equivalent energy) it was determined to have, the LHC needed to find a swarm of other particles, too. None turned up.
With the discovery of only one particle, the LHC experiments deepened a profound problem in physics that had been brewing for decades. Modern equations seem to capture reality with breathtaking accuracy, correctly predicting the values of many constants of nature and the existence of particles like the Higgs. Yet a few constants — including the mass of the Higgs boson — are exponentially different from what these trusted laws indicate they should be, in ways that would rule out any chance of life, unless the universe is shaped by inexplicable fine-tunings and cancellations.
In peril is the notion of "naturalness," Albert Einstein's dream that the laws of nature are sublimely beautiful, inevitable and self-contained. Without it, physicists face the harsh prospect that those laws are just an arbitrary, messy outcome of random fluctuations in the fabric of space and time.
The LHC will resume smashing protons in 2015 in a last-ditch search for answers. But in papers, talks and interviews, Arkani-Hamed and many other top physicists are already confronting the possibility that the universe might be unnatural. (There is wide disagreement, however, about what it would take to prove it.)
"Ten or 20 years ago, I was a firm believer in naturalness," said Nathan Seiberg, a theoretical physicist at the Institute, where Einstein taught from 1933 until his death in 1955. "Now I'm not so sure. My hope is there's still something we haven't thought about, some other mechanism that would explain all these things. But I don't see what it could be."
Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam. According to a popular but polarizing framework called string theory, the number of possible types of universes that can bubble up in a multiverse is around 10^500. In a few of them, chance cancellations would produce the strange constants we observe.
In such a picture, not everything about this universe is inevitable, rendering it unpredictable. Edward Witten, a string theorist at the Institute, said by email, "I would be happy personally if the multiverse interpretation is not correct, in part because it potentially limits our ability to understand the laws of physics. But none of us were consulted when the universe was created."
"Some people hate it," said Raphael Bousso, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley who helped develop the multiverse scenario. "But I just don't think we can analyze it on an emotional basis. It's a logical possibility that is increasingly favored in the absence of naturalness at the LHC."
What the LHC does or doesn't discover in its next run is likely to lend support to one of two possibilities: Either we live in an overcomplicated but stand-alone universe, or we inhabit an atypical bubble in a multiverse. "We will be a lot smarter five or 10 years from today because of the LHC," Seiberg said. "So that's exciting. This is within reach."
Cosmic Coincidence
Einstein once wrote that for a scientist, "religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law" and that "this feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work." Indeed, throughout the 20th century, the deep-seated belief that the laws of nature are harmonious — a belief in "naturalness" — has proven a reliable guide for discovering truth.
"Naturalness has a track record," Arkani-Hamed said in an interview. In practice, it is the requirement that the physical constants (particle masses and other fixed properties of the universe) emerge directly from the laws of physics, rather than resulting from improbable cancellations. Time and again, whenever a constant appeared fine-tuned, as if its initial value had been magically dialed to offset other effects, physicists suspected they were missing something. They would seek and inevitably find some particle or feature that materially dialed the constant, obviating a fine-tuned cancellation.
This time, the self-healing powers of the universe seem to be failing. The Higgs boson has a mass of 126 giga-electron-volts, but interactions with the other known particles should add about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 giga-electron-volts to its mass. This implies that the Higgs' "bare mass," or starting value before other particles affect it, just so happens to be the negative of that astronomical number, resulting in a near-perfect cancellation that leaves just a hint of Higgs behind: 126 giga-electron-volts.
Physicists have gone through three generations of particle accelerators searching for new particles, posited by a theory called supersymmetry, that would drive the Higgs mass down exactly as much as the known particles drive it up. But so far they've come up empty-handed.
The upgraded LHC will explore ever-higher energy scales in its next run, but even if new particles are found, they will almost definitely be too heavy to influence the Higgs mass in quite the right way. The Higgs will still seem at least 10 or 100 times too light. Physicists disagree about whether this is acceptable in a natural, stand-alone universe. "Fine-tuned a little — maybe it just happens," said Lisa Randall, a professor at Harvard University. But in Arkani-Hamed's opinion, being "a little bit tuned is like being a little bit pregnant. It just doesn't exist."
If no new particles appear and the Higgs remains astronomically fine-tuned, then the multiverse hypothesis will stride into the limelight. "It doesn't mean it's right," said Bousso, a longtime supporter of the multiverse picture, "but it does mean it's the only game in town."
A few physicists — notably Joe Lykken of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., and Alessandro Strumia of the University of Pisa in Italy — see a third option. They say that physicists might be misgauging the effects of other particles on the Higgs mass and that when calculated differently, its mass appears natural. This "modified naturalness" falters when additional particles, such as the unknown constituents of dark matter, are included in calculations — but the same unorthodox path could yield other ideas. "I don't want to advocate, but just to discuss the consequences," Strumia said during a talk earlier this month at Brookhaven National Laboratory.
However, modified naturalness cannot fix an even bigger naturalness problem that exists in physics: The fact that the cosmos wasn't instantly annihilated by its own energy the moment after the Big Bang.
Dark Dilemma
The energy built into the vacuum of space (known as vacuum energy, dark energy or the cosmological constant) is a baffling trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times smaller than what is calculated to be its natural, albeit self-destructive, value. No theory exists about what could naturally fix this gargantuan disparity. But it's clear that the cosmological constant has to be enormously fine-tuned to prevent the universe from rapidly exploding or collapsing to a point. It has to be fine-tuned in order for life to have a chance.
To explain this absurd bit of luck, the multiverse idea has been growing mainstream in cosmology circles over the past few decades. It got a credibility boost in 1987 when the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg, now a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, calculated that the cosmological constant of our universe is expected in the multiverse scenario. Of the possible universes capable of supporting life — the only ones that can be observed and contemplated in the first place — ours is among the least fine-tuned. "If the cosmological constant were much larger than the observed value, say by a factor of 10, then we would have no galaxies," explained Alexander Vilenkin, a cosmologist and multiverse theorist at Tufts University. "It's hard to imagine how life might exist in such a universe."
Most particle physicists hoped that a more testable explanation for the cosmological constant problem would be found. None has. Now, physicists say, the unnaturalness of the Higgs makes the unnaturalness of the cosmological constant more significant. Arkani-Hamed thinks the issues may even be related. "We don't have an understanding of a basic extraordinary fact about our universe," he said. "It is big and has big things in it."
The multiverse turned into slightly more than just a hand-waving argument in 2000, when Bousso and Joe Polchinski, a professor of theoretical physics at the University of California at Santa Barbara, found a mechanism that could give rise to a panorama of parallel universes. String theory, a hypothetical "theory of everything" that regards particles as invisibly small vibrating lines, posits that space-time is 10-dimensional. At the human scale, we experience just three dimensions of space and one of time, but string theorists argue that six extra dimensions are tightly knotted at every point in the fabric of our 4-D reality. Bousso and Polchinski calculated that there are around 10500 different ways for those six dimensions to be knotted (all tying up varying amounts of energy), making an inconceivably vast and diverse array of universes possible. In other words, naturalness is not required. There isn't a single, inevitable, perfect universe.
"It was definitely an aha-moment for me," Bousso said. But the paper sparked outrage.
"Particle physicists, especially string theorists, had this dream of predicting uniquely all the constants of nature," Bousso explained. "Everything would just come out of math and pi and twos. And we came in and said, 'Look, it's not going to happen, and there's a reason it's not going to happen. We're thinking about this in totally the wrong way.' "
Life in a Multiverse
The Big Bang, in the Bousso-Polchinski multiverse scenario, is a fluctuation. A compact, six-dimensional knot that makes up one stitch in the fabric of reality suddenly shape-shifts, releasing energy that forms a bubble of space and time. The properties of this new universe are determined by chance: the amount of energy unleashed during the fluctuation. The vast majority of universes that burst into being in this way are thick with vacuum energy; they either expand or collapse so quickly that life cannot arise in them. But some atypical universes, in which an improbable cancellation yields a tiny value for the cosmological constant, are much like ours.
In a paper posted last month to the physics preprint website arXiv.org, Bousso and a Berkeley colleague, Lawrence Hall, argue that the Higgs mass makes sense in the multiverse scenario, too. They found that bubble universes that contain enough visible matter (compared to dark matter) to support life most often have supersymmetric particles beyond the energy range of the LHC, and a fine-tuned Higgs boson. Similarly, other physicists showed in 1997 that if the Higgs boson were five times heavier than it is, this would suppress the formation of atoms other than hydrogen, resulting, by yet another means, in a lifeless universe.
Despite these seemingly successful explanations, many physicists worry that there is little to be gained by adopting the multiverse worldview. Parallel universes cannot be tested for; worse, an unnatural universe resists understanding. "Without naturalness, we will lose the motivation to look for new physics," said Kfir Blum, a physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study. "We know it's there, but there is no robust argument for why we should find it." That sentiment is echoed again and again: "I would prefer the universe to be natural," Randall said.
But theories can grow on physicists. After spending more than a decade acclimating himself to the multiverse, Arkani-Hamed now finds it plausible — and a viable route to understanding the ways of our world. "The wonderful point, as far as I'm concerned, is basically any result at the LHC will steer us with different degrees of force down one of these divergent paths," he said. "This kind of choice is a very, very big deal."
Naturalness could pull through. Or it could be a false hope in a strange but comfortable pocket of the multiverse.
As Arkani-Hamed told the audience at Columbia, "stay tuned."
Reprinted with permission from Simons Science News, an editorially-independent division of SimonsFoundation.org whose mission is to enhance public understanding of science by covering research developments and trends in mathematics and the computational, physical and life sciences.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-physics-complications-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis/
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 08:43:28 AM
Plus, as Hume pointed out, a carrot is even more amazing than a watch, and yet you don't presume, when finding a carrot in a field, that someone must have created that carrot. Hell, you can grow a carrot yourself.
Hume cut through nonsense like nobody else. Got to love him.
QuoteI am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negroe slaves dispersed all over Europe, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; tho' low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica indeed they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but 'tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 31, 2015, 10:18:25 AM
I am not sure what you base your assertion that the theory doesn't predict other universes which are parallel, separate and very different than ours. you are a little behind the times. Today you get to learn something. (snip)
I learned that you don't understand the term "theory!" :lol:
The article says that "Physicists
reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky?"
That's not a theory. That's not even a hypothesis. That's just a guess. Even your own article notes that "parallel universes cannot be tested for." You cannot have a theory if you don't have a testable 9and thus disprovable) hypothesis.
See, today it was
you who learned something. If you are capable of learning, anyway.
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 10:40:41 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 31, 2015, 10:18:25 AM
I am not sure what you base your assertion that the theory doesn't predict other universes which are parallel, separate and very different than ours. you are a little behind the times. Today you get to learn something. (snip)
I learned that you don't understand the term "theory!" :lol:
Perhaps the worst backpeddle quibble in the history of the universe - or any universe.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2015, 10:22:19 AM
QuoteI am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negroe slaves dispersed all over Europe, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; tho' low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica indeed they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but 'tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly.
Well nobody is perfect
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 10:43:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2015, 10:22:19 AM
QuoteI am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negroe slaves dispersed all over Europe, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; tho' low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica indeed they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but 'tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly.
Well nobody is perfect
Dolph. :mad:
Yeah, I'm not buying the "unnatural" argument here. There seems to be a presumption that our current understanding of the universe is close to complete, and that the mysteries that are unexplained can be described by assuming multiple universes. It reminds me too much of Lord Kelvin's support for a youngish (20-40 million years) earth driven by the mistaken understanding of the source of the Sun's energy as well as the earth's internal temperature. It wasn't until radioactive decay and fusion were discovered that his (perfectly correct based on what he knew) reasoning was shown conclusively false. Sometimes the smartest man in the room comes to the wrong conclusion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 31, 2015, 10:42:38 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 10:40:41 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 31, 2015, 10:18:25 AM
I am not sure what you base your assertion that the theory doesn't predict other universes which are parallel, separate and very different than ours. you are a little behind the times. Today you get to learn something. (snip)
I learned that you don't understand the term "theory!" :lol:
Perhaps the worst backpeddle quibble in the history of the universe - or any universe.
Indeed. Your backpeddle makes us all dizzy. My original statement was perfectly correct, and yours was wrong. You can weasel all you want, but those remain the facts.
You might also want to re-read the original article posted here. It also explains what the term "parallel universes" means in terms of the LHC:
Quote"Normally, when people think of the multiverse, they think of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, where every possibility is actualised.
"This cannot be tested and so it is philosophy and not science.
"This is not what we mean by parallel universes. What we mean is real universes in extra dimensions.
"As gravity can flow out of our universe into the extra dimensions, such a model can be tested by the detection of mini black holes at the LHC."
This is consistent with what I wrote and inconsistent with what you wrote.
Quote from: frunk on March 31, 2015, 11:13:11 AM
Yeah, I'm not buying the "unnatural" argument here. There seems to be a presumption that our current understanding of the universe is close to complete, and that the mysteries that are unexplained can be described by assuming multiple universes. It reminds me too much of Lord Kelvin's support for a youngish (20-40 million years) earth driven by the mistaken understanding of the source of the Sun's energy as well as the earth's internal temperature. It wasn't until radioactive decay and fusion were discovered that his (perfectly correct based on what he knew) reasoning was shown conclusively false. Sometimes the smartest man in the room comes to the wrong conclusion.
Agreed, though I think that the "unnatural" argument suffers from a far larger problem, in that it is built around the logical fallacy that, while someone has to win the lottery, the odds of a person winning it are so low as to make it impossible for a person to win.
Had the universe not been structured for life, there would be no one asking the questions about how the universe is structured. The probability that the universe "should" exist in its current form is impossible to accurately compute; the probability that it
did is 1.0.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 10:43:51 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2015, 10:22:19 AM
QuoteI am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction betwixt these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negroe slaves dispersed all over Europe, of which none ever discovered any symptoms of ingenuity; tho' low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica indeed they talk of one negroe as a man of parts and learning; but 'tis likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few words plainly.
Well nobody is perfect
That is a mighty large imperfection for a moral philosopher or one describing science. If man can't distinguish that other men are in fact men, it brings doubt on his ability to quantify vegetables or spring powered machines.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2015, 11:56:56 AM
That is a mighty large imperfection for a moral philosopher or one describing science. If man can't distinguish that other men are in fact men, it brings doubt on his ability to quantify vegetables or spring powered machines.
Yes I am well aware of your constant demands for everybody to be pure.
how would alternate universes that couldn't support life hurt the argument that a being created the multiverse? it might hurt the argument that this universe with its rules was created specifically so humans could one day emerge, but that's already an egotistical and flawed argument.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 11:58:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2015, 11:56:56 AM
That is a mighty large imperfection for a moral philosopher or one describing science. If man can't distinguish that other men are in fact men, it brings doubt on his ability to quantify vegetables or spring powered machines.
Yes I am well aware of your constant demands for everybody to be pure.
Simply coherent.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 11:58:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2015, 11:56:56 AM
That is a mighty large imperfection for a moral philosopher or one describing science. If man can't distinguish that other men are in fact men, it brings doubt on his ability to quantify vegetables or spring powered machines.
Yes I am well aware of your constant demands for everybody to be pure.
I really don't think you are wise to even engage the troll. You know this will only end in tears or gunfire.
Its days like this that I really wish Hamilcar was still amongst us.
Quote from: grumbler on March 31, 2015, 12:03:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 11:58:28 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2015, 11:56:56 AM
That is a mighty large imperfection for a moral philosopher or one describing science. If man can't distinguish that other men are in fact men, it brings doubt on his ability to quantify vegetables or spring powered machines.
Yes I am well aware of your constant demands for everybody to be pure.
I really don't think you are wise to even engage the troll. You know this will only end in tears or gunfire.
He's trying to marry me! Jesus Christ!
Comic books have solved all of this a long time ago, why get real science involved and risk ruining all those good comic book stories? :mad:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2015, 11:59:32 AM
Simply coherent.
It seems more simply throwing out babies because of racist bathwater.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 31, 2015, 11:58:44 AM
how would alternate universes that couldn't support life hurt the argument that a being created the multiverse? it might hurt the argument that this universe with its rules was created specifically so humans could one day emerge, but that's already an egotistical and flawed argument.
The idea that multiple universes make the known universe "more natural" is a philosophical argument, not a scientific or logical one. It gets its power from the intuitive but erroneous idea that holds that highly unlikely results are only possible if many results occur and you can search and find the unlikely one.
I suppose the creator theory that includes a bunch of "useless' universes leads to the question of why a creator would create useless universes. Its much like the "theory" of "Unintelligent Design" which notes all the things about the universe that no intelligent designer would possibly have included (like blood vessels in the human eye that are placed to block vision, or the fact that the optic nerve connects to the retina on the light-receiving side, blocking part of the retina). None of this is logically necessary; the burden of proof is on those who propose supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 12:12:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2015, 11:59:32 AM
Simply coherent.
It seems more simply throwing out babies because of racist bathwater.
How much bad bathwater is required in your opinion to throw out a baby? Does it differ if the water is provided by an eminent philosopher, some nobody or someone you agree with?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2015, 12:24:33 PM
Does it differ if the water is provided by an eminent philosopher, some nobody or someone you agree with?
It is the context more than the who, obviously. I would be far less tolerant of somebody alive today in my own culture having those kinds of views than I would Scottish people living hundreds of years ago. But even then hey I still listen to what Lettow says. When/if Lettow says something else that is brilliant I will not refuse to listen just because I disagree with him elsewhere.
Quote from: LaCroix on March 31, 2015, 11:58:44 AM
how would alternate universes that couldn't support life hurt the argument that a being created the multiverse? it might hurt the argument that this universe with its rules was created specifically so humans could one day emerge, but that's already an egotistical and flawed argument.
The important change is that physicists had once believed that theoretical models could explain how everything in the Universe worked because most everything seemed to follow what appeared to be a universal constant for life to exist. The challenge was to find the right theoretical models. However, when the Higgs Boson particle was discovered it turned out to have a mass which was different then that predicted by the single universe "naturalness" theory. But on the other hand it didn't have the mass which was predicted by the multiverse theory either. The mass was something in between. And so since that discovery physicists have been eagerly awaiting the re-opening of CERN so that higher energy collisions can be created and perhaps other particles can be detected which may be consistent with the single naturalness universe. If they are not found then the multi universe theory will be more likely. It that is the case then that would be discouraging for many physicists, not to mention theologians, because it would mean that everything, our universe and every other universe, including the physical properties of those countless universes, are entirely random.
People think a lot about useless things.
Quote from: frunk on March 31, 2015, 11:13:11 AM
Yeah, I'm not buying the "unnatural" argument here. There seems to be a presumption that our current understanding of the universe is close to complete, and that the mysteries that are unexplained can be described by assuming multiple universes. It reminds me too much of Lord Kelvin's support for a youngish (20-40 million years) earth driven by the mistaken understanding of the source of the Sun's energy as well as the earth's internal temperature. It wasn't until radioactive decay and fusion were discovered that his (perfectly correct based on what he knew) reasoning was shown conclusively false. Sometimes the smartest man in the room comes to the wrong conclusion.
Jazz or cuisine?
Quote from: Valmy on March 31, 2015, 12:29:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 31, 2015, 12:24:33 PM
Does it differ if the water is provided by an eminent philosopher, some nobody or someone you agree with?
It is the context more than the who, obviously. I would be far less tolerant of somebody alive today in my own culture having those kinds of views than I would Scottish people living hundreds of years ago. But even then hey I still listen to what Lettow says. When/if Lettow says something else that is brilliant I will not refuse to listen just because I disagree with him elsewhere.
I actually listen to Lettow quite abit. He is brilliant. Mad but brilliant. I brought up the racism thing because it undermines his carrot argument. He can't even identify a human being, his expertise on the complexity of carrots is questionable.
Why does he never gift this forum with his brilliance? :unsure:
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 09:14:10 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 31, 2015, 09:12:03 AM
I guess CERN has not destroyed the world by creating a rift in the fabric of time and space yet?
How would we know? Maybe it has destroyed one universe, and replaced it with another. :P
If it created a black hole and sucked us into it...what would be different, besides us now being inside a black hole? (we're probably already inside a few anyway)
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 31, 2015, 11:38:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 09:14:10 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 31, 2015, 09:12:03 AM
I guess CERN has not destroyed the world by creating a rift in the fabric of time and space yet?
How would we know? Maybe it has destroyed one universe, and replaced it with another. :P
If it created a black hole and sucked us into it...what would be different, besides us now being inside a black hole? (we're probably already inside a few anyway)
We'd be dead.
How would you know for sure? :hmm:
We could be like...
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.modernprimate.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2FEnding.jpg&hash=5c30fe813993d6affa4ce720441adc36c479ed86)
Unlikely.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 31, 2015, 11:38:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 31, 2015, 09:14:10 AM
Quote from: lustindarkness on March 31, 2015, 09:12:03 AM
I guess CERN has not destroyed the world by creating a rift in the fabric of time and space yet?
How would we know? Maybe it has destroyed one universe, and replaced it with another. :P
If it created a black hole and sucked us into it...what would be different, besides us now being inside a black hole? (we're probably already inside a few anyway)
Whoa, that's brilliant.
What if the universe is inside a black hole?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.meme.am%2Finstances%2F400x%2F37063583.jpg&hash=bd32120a9f9856cef53f88fea0532314f2c26d7e)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.computer-bild.de%2Fimgs%2F4%2F3%2F7%2F8%2F4%2F2%2F9%2FWhat-if-Keanu-Reeves-created-this-meme-to-become-an-internet-celebrity-again-745x559-4e51a07a65e5c478.jpg&hash=91e93905dee286b10d6f17ce339948ecc69b106d)
I prefer Philosoraptor.
Quote from: Siege on April 01, 2015, 04:16:11 PM
Whoa, that's brilliant.
What if the universe is inside a black hole?
What if YHWH forsook the Jews and made Arabs his chosen people? :hmm:
They certainly suffer enough.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fak-hdl.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2F2015-04%2F6%2F9%2Fenhanced%2Fwebdr10%2Fenhanced-8487-1428328292-1.png&hash=5c4a88f6bcaf2e2deea86c4e627c91639b3877c0)
The Hadron collider was unnecessary, evidence has been found in SPACE!
Video that explains it
http://bcove.me/qi0ohbjt
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/11/03/alternate-universes-discovered/75102502/
Quote
Prepare to have your mind blown.
An astrophysicist says he may have found evidence of alternate or parallel universes by looking back in time to just after the Big Bang more than 13 billion years ago.
While mapping the so-called "cosmic microwave background," which is the light left over from the early universe, scientist Ranga-Ram Chary found what he called a mysterious glow, the International Business Times reported.
Chary, a researcher at the European Space Agency's Planck Space Telescope data center at CalTech, said the glow could be due to matter from a neighboring universe "leaking" into ours, according to New Scientist magazine.
"Our universe may simply be a region within an eternally inflating super-region," scientist Chary wrote in a recent study in the Astrophysical Journal.
"Many other regions beyond our observable universe would exist with each such region governed by a different set of physical parameters than the ones we have measured for our universe," Chary wrote in the study.
While the findings sound promising and have already gained the attention of other astronomers, as Russia Today (RT) reported, it could be quite complicated to verify, since the Planck telescope provides limited data for further study.
"Unusual claims like evidence for alternate universes require a very high burden of proof," Chary noted in the study.
:hmm:
RT knows where it's at.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 13, 2015, 12:38:37 AM
a mysterious glow . . . an eternally inflating super-region
Huh so it is God after all.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 13, 2015, 10:30:44 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 13, 2015, 12:38:37 AM
a mysterious glow . . . an eternally inflating super-region
Huh so it is God after all.
:cue Ed Anger double-entendre about an eternally inflating super region:
I am in contact with my fellow Ed Angers across the multiverse. All Tim's will be punched in the nuts.
Not unless some of the Angers are willing to meet people from the forum.