Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 13461 - 13480 of total 22747 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Mar 9, 2013 - 11:50am PT
Here is a list of the haplogroups of some famous people , past and present:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_haplogroups_of_historical_and_famous_figures#Albert_Einstein
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Mar 9, 2013 - 01:24pm PT
Another thought experiment

The relativity of simultaneity is a difficult concept in physics that practically seems counterintuitive to us, since the effects are only noticeable at speeds that are a substantial fraction of the speed of light. The whole idea states that if two events are separated in space, it is impossible to tell in an absolute sense if they occurred at the same time. It all depends on the reference frame in which an observer is.

A mind-bending prediction of the above principle of special relativity is the length contraction(or Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction). It is partially related to the time dilation phenomenon. It refers to the observation that the measurements of length made to an object within a frame of reference (FR) in which the object is stationary (or “proper”) are larger than those made in another FR that is moving relatively to the first. In other words, a stationary observer will make a smaller measurement of an object’s length, should the object move at a relativistic speed (speed which is a significant proportion of the speed of light).

Hence the following thought experiment. Alice runs with a ladder towards a garage and tries to pass through. Suppose she carries a ladder whose length she has measured to be Lo. She travels at a high speed towards a garage which has also a length Lo. The garage has two doors, one at the front and one at the rear, and the front one is closed while the rear is open. Since Bob doesn’t want Alice to mess with his garage’s integrity, he will simultaneously close the rear door and open the front when Alice’s ladder is fully into the garage, so that Alice passes safely through.

Bob is outside the garage and observes the scene. Since Alice is traveling at a relativistic speed he will observe the ladder’s length to lessen. So not only will he see the ladder fit into the garage, but there will also exist enough space for it to move inside the garage. Thus he closes the rear door and opens the front. Alice passes safely through.

But what does Alice observe? Since the garage is the one traveling at a relativistic speed through her FR, she will actually see the garage’s length to shorten. Therefore, she would expect to smash against the front door and the rear door to close onto her ladder. However, things will be observed differently though her FR. First, the front door will open, giving her space to move the ladder in order for the rear end to fit in the garage. Then, the rear door will close, but that will not matter as she will have moved her ladder outside of the rear door’s area.

The crucial question remains; whose observation is the “right” one? Both, says the Special Relativity. One cannot have an absolute sense of the order of events that are separated in space; everything depends on the frame of reference in which an observer resides.

The "length contraction" was produced by Fitzgerald and Lorentz. However, it was Einstein that explained the kinematic effect due to change in space, time and simultaneity brought about by special relativity.

Sources: http://www.rafimoor.com/english/SRE.htm#The%20Relativity%20of%20Simultaneity http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/RelativityOfSimultaneity/ http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_pole_paradox.htm

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Mar 9, 2013 - 02:52pm PT
Anyone catch the Charlie Rose interview last night? About the MIND.

Very,very insightful interview with 5 of the top Scientist and Dr's.

I'm look'in for the link

Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Mar 9, 2013 - 04:26pm PT
If you go to you tube and put in " Charlie Rose Brain Series" you can get most the installments to that excellent series on the brain.
It's moderated by the Nobel laureate Eric Kandel
http://m.youtube.com/results?q=charlie%20rose%20brain%20series
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 9, 2013 - 05:15pm PT
I'm a lefty so have to be careful with Ayn Rand, but thought this was on topic for whatever this thread is about:

The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness). ...

They want to cheat the axiom of existence and consciousness, they want their consciousness to be an instrument not of perceiving but of creating existence, and existence to be not the object but the subject of their consciousness — they want to be that God they created in their image and likeness, who creates a universe out of a void by means of an arbitrary whim. But reality is not to be cheated. What they achieve is the opposite of their desire. They want an omnipotent power over existence; instead, they lose the power of their consciousness. By refusing to know, they condemn themselves to the horror of a perpetual unknown.

The philosophic source of this viewpoint and its major advocate in the history of philosophy is Aristotle. Its opponents are all the other major traditions, including Platonism, Christianity, and German idealism. Directly or indirectly, these traditions uphold the notion that consciousness is the creator of reality. The essence of this notion is the denial of the axiom that existence exists.


cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 9, 2013 - 05:28pm PT
Don Paul

Big Wall climber
Colombia, South America
Mar 9, 2013 - 05:34pm PT
Thanks for tip on the Charlie Rose series on the brain. Here's a link to the consciousness episode. It doesn't try solve the basic dilemma that religions try to solve - why I do feel like I'm me?

In the discussion they mention that subconscious thoughts are localized in certain regions of the brain. If they become important enough they broadcast to other areas of the brain to become a conscious thought. So it's like the entire brain is involved in it now, instead of being one of many things in the background.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Mar 9, 2013 - 06:06pm PT
"Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever ´til the end of time...but he loves you."
George Carlin
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Mar 9, 2013 - 06:23pm PT
"... and he needs your money."

God is a comedian playing to an audience that is too afraid to laugh.
 Voltaire
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Mar 9, 2013 - 06:49pm PT
God is a comedian

 Figuratively… that may be true, if by "comedian" you mean "a joke".
 Literally… There is no god.



 I'd like to ask it again, like I hear on my often listened to Atheist podcast: What do you believe and why?

Often times, the theist will fall flat when attempting to answer this question, attempting to float an "idea" or "feeling" of god, a fictitious "need" for there being a god, or providing "god" for the answer to an age old question…. It always seems to fall flat on me. It requires that I imagine a god in order to believe in a god.

With there being no god everything makes perfect sense. The benign indifference of the universe makes sense, life or no life makes sense.
The questions I've read on this thread would make sense as well. Is there a universe without consciousness? Yes, everything in existence would still exist whether we humans with what we call consciousness were here to know it or not. Just like the fish at the bottom of the ocean don't know anything outside the cold dark depths of the deep (and everything on the earth still goes on) then it stands to reason that even if we humans don't know anything outside of our current world of experiences then the whole universe still goes on.

Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Mar 9, 2013 - 07:25pm PT
The questions I've read on this thread would make sense as well. Is there a universe without consciousness? Yes, everything in existence would still exist whether we humans with what we call consciousness were here to know it or not. Just like the fish at the bottom of the ocean don't know anything outside the cold dark depths of the deep (and everything on the earth still goes on) then it stands to reason that even if we humans don't know anything outside of our current world of experiences then the whole universe still goes on.

The assertions put forth in this statement amounts to an article of faith, since there is no scientific or logical proof that a God does not exist. All that science can assert is that God, or any paranormal force, has no bearing on the result of scientific experiments ,hitherto constructed.
If an individual comes to the conclusion that a God does not exist ,he or she comes to that conclusion as an article of faith, independent of any objective , experimental ,or empirical determination.
Therefore , the belief that a God does not exist is on equal footing with the belief that a God does exist. An article of faith based upon a 'feeling' or 'sense' or some other non-empirical determination.
MH2

climber
Mar 9, 2013 - 07:38pm PT
But doesn't that put a belief in God on an equal footing with a belief in unicorns?
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Mar 9, 2013 - 07:41pm PT
But doesn't that put a belief in God on an equal footing with a belief in unicorns?

And on an equal footing with a belief that God does not exist.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 9, 2013 - 07:47pm PT
Bottom Line:

extraordinary claims (god) require extraordinary proofs


Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Mar 9, 2013 - 07:57pm PT
extraordinary claims (god) require extraordinary proofs

To one who believes in a God , or an agnostic, the reverse is also true.
If your claim that God does not exist is 'extraordinary' to such a person, then it should be also inversely conditional to provide a burden of proof that God does not exist.
MH2

climber
Mar 9, 2013 - 08:13pm PT
Then the question becomes what action you take according to your belief. I may be wrong but I have a sense that there God and unicorns part ways.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Mar 9, 2013 - 08:20pm PT
Then the question becomes what action you take according to your belief. I may be wrong but I have a sense that there God and unicorns part ways.

LOL. I agree.

http://www.allaboutunicorns.com/


Credit: Ward Trotter
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Mar 9, 2013 - 08:23pm PT
Since the bible is a crock, it is easy for me to believe there is no biblical god.
MH2

climber
Mar 9, 2013 - 08:23pm PT
If the proposition that God exists is equal to the proposition that God does not exist, would you give the existence of God a 50% probability?
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Mar 9, 2013 - 08:31pm PT
If the proposition that God exists is equal to the proposition that God does not exist, would you give the existence of God a 50% probability?

Yes , as a propositional assertion based upon the purely polemical confines of the current argument.
However, at any given moment of metaphysically inclined reflection the percentages may vary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Since the bible is a crock, it is easy for me to believe there is no biblical god.

Since the bible is not 100% a crock, many elements being demonstrably , historically accurate, then MH2's percentage requirement is here acutely relevant.
If the bible is accurate in at least 2% of its assertions ;then you are consequently duty -bound to concede a meager 2% belief in a biblical God.
Messages 13461 - 13480 of total 22747 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews