|
What's the best country to live in? (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
And in my astronomy studies there has been little evidence to rationally dispel the theory of an original designer/creator (yet) so yes, I believe in a creator/designer of some sort. |
There need to be more people like you in science. It is paradoxical that science works from the basic model of putting forth a theory and altering it when it is disproved, yet most scientist refuse the existence of a god/deity/creator although no evidence disproves this ancient theory.
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
Lots of people are starting to believe less and less in the Big Bang theory. You have to think...if that was the beginning of space and time, what was there before? therefore, who put it all there? Ergo, there is a creator. |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
We started a great topic...
The thing that really intrigues me is what "place" does the universe expand into? If the universe that we know is the only one, where does it go? Is space really there without stars, galaxies, etc? |
Indeed a great topic. I am not an trained expert in this field (unlike occrider), but I do enjoy reading about this and trying to fit my mind and perception into the contemporary theories of physics. Therefore, the following might be riddled with errors and you should not take it as an absolute truth, but at least it makes sense for me:
First, let me try to argue why the intuitive picture of the universe expanding, consisting of a small dot in some three dimensional Cartesian coordinate system suddenly exploding and Earth materializing in the remains at some point in time, does not make sense. If this where the case, this unique point would have some strict coordinate, and the blast would be directed away from this point. In the case where Earth is some distance away from the point of explosion, we would therefore only be able to "see" the blast in one direction, but that is not the case, as we can see back in time by pointing our telescopes in any direction. The only other possibility is that Earth is located in the exact point of the explosion, but in that case we would not be able to see the blast as the light from this is moving away from us.
When scientists talk of space expanding, they are refering to the growth in its volume (related to its curvature). However, hard it might be to comprehend, the volume of a piece of the universe do not necessarily equal the product of height, width, and depth. This can be envisioned by drawing some shape (say, a circle of radius r) on a piece of paper. The area of this circle is some fixed number f(r) (f as in flat:)). Now, had you drawn this circle on the surface of a sphere, its area would be smaller. This can be confirmed if you try to "mold" the paper into a ball - it cannot be done as there is "surplus" paper.
However, if you draw the same circle on a horse saddle, the area is suddenly larger than f(r). Again, the "molding" test will confirm that there is not enough paper to create a saddle.
In more concice terms, the area of a given shape thus varies with the curvature of the plane it is drawn on. In three dimensions it is the same deal: The volume of some object can be larger or smaller than the product of its dimensions, depending on the curvature of the space. Therefore, when scientist talk of the universe "expanding" they mean that volume of a given object has been 0 at big bang and ever growing since.
If we again turn our attention to the sphere with the circle on its surface, we can draw a parallel by imagining the sphere getting smaller and smaller. At some point the area of the circle will cover the surface exactly. From that point on, the area will get increasingly smaller and when the sphere is infinitely small the area will likewise be infinitely small, as it was the case for the universe at the beginning of time.
Therefore, there is no point in asking what is "outside" the universe, as the universe is infintely big and always has been.
As regard to time and what were "before" big bang, the question can be argued to be semantically undefined as well. This topic is excellently described in David Deutsch's "Fabric of Reality" that I cannot recommend enough, and what follows is only a very brief and confusing summary of its points. According to both the theory of relativety and the theory of quantum mechanics the nature of time is not like that of a river which drags stuff along, unlike what our experience tells us. Depending on your position in the universe even the notion of coincidence stops being meaningful. I won't go into this in detail as that would render this post even more lengthy and boring. Just take it that time as we experience it is an illusion.
From the theory of quantum mechanics objects do not move along continuous paths in the universe, but remain fixed and can with some probability suddenly "teleport" some distance, meaning it stops being at some place and is at some other place. (As these jumps take place over distances much smaller than an atom, it is obviously not noticeable by us humans.)
If you consider all energy and matter in the universe as some (huge) set of particles, then another set, consisting of joint "states" of the universe, can be envisioned. Sort of like a bunch of snapshots of the positions of all particles in the universe in some instant.
Now, consider two of these snapshots, which differ quite heavily (for instance, the one you experience right now (state 1), and a similar one in which the moon is positioned in some other galaxy (state 2)). The probability of the particles to teleport from state 1 to 2 is very low. Actually, it is so low that I will claim that you are not going to experience it in your lifetime.
Time can then be seen as the "probabilistic glue" that defines the likelihood of states transforming into others. The state you are part of "right now" (state 3) can then be "followed" be another state in which the particles of your brain are arranged in such a manner that you can "remember" what you are reading "right now" (state 4). No actual transformation is happening, it is just a property of state 4 that a sequence of states, starting with the state corresponding to the beginning of big bang and ending with state 3, has a very high probability of leading to state 4. Fairly abstract I'll admit, but as stated previously it makes sense for me.
If you follow this reasoning you will see that there is no point in asking what was "before" big bang. There is no time, simply a huge set of possible states of the universe and some mapping that defines how nicely two states "fit". The state corresponding to big bang is then just one of these, but unlike the other states, we have no theory drawn from experience that allows us to reason about what states are likely to transform into this one. Thus both an oscillating "ever present" universe as well as a "time bounded" universe is possible.
If you got to this point, you have my eternal respect and admiration ;). |
|
|
| GODLESSCOMMIE |
| quote: | Originally posted by sp0k4ne
you haven't seen from the USA yet, you have not seen the USA evolved in its final form
:whip: :whip: :whip: |
Does the USA get to do a animality to finish the world?, or is it something like glowing yellow and shooting energy beams? |
|
|
| TuanAnh213 |
| quote: | Originally posted by GODLESSCOMMIE
Does the USA get to do a animality to finish the world?, or is it something like glowing yellow and shooting energy beams? |
:stongue: :stongue: :stongue:
i think its final form is a version of the giant deathstar in star wars...what a ing idiot sp4kane is lol |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | | There need to be more people like you in science. It is paradoxical that science works from the basic model of putting forth a theory and altering it when it is disproved, yet most scientist refuse the existence of a god/deity/creator although no evidence disproves this ancient theory. |
But that's only because it can't be disproved given that God is defined inversely to that which we know. Whereas God was once an anthropological being who enjoyed talking through burning bushes and smiting people, he is now an ill-defined "vapour" permeating the universe and doing little to interfere with human civilization. It's the God of the Gaps theory: whatever we don't know is just filled up with "God probably did it". When we didn't understand solar eclipses, it was the work of God. When we didn't understand disease, it was the work of God. Whereas God was once the explanation for a great many events, with the advent of the scientific process, he is now merely the "being" (I use the term "being" quite loosely) that created the universe and not much else.
Carl Sagan wrote in Demon Haunted World (a recommended read by the way) that we should always be wary of theories that cannot be disproven. Evolution is a good theory, because there is plenty of evidence that could turn up that would render it invalid (namely finding dinosaur remains in the same rock strata as early human remains). Same with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: the recent discovery that the speed of light may have been slightly faster in the past may call into question some areas of this theory for instance (E=MC^2? Does it matter if C is a variable rather than a constant?). The theory that I have an invisible dragon in my garage that you can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch is a bad theory - there is no test we can run that can render it invalid. It doesn't mean that it isn't there, just that the way I've defined this "dragon" means that its existence cannot possibly be confirmed or denied. Even if someone invented a machine that can detect invisible dragons, it wouldn't be hard to invent an excuse as to why the tests performed in my garage turned up negative. And you can draw the parellels here between dragons and gods. Before I can start taking the concept of God seriously I'd firstly need a definitive definition of who or what God is and some ideas about what evidence or knowledge it would take to render God falsifiable.
Also, I think it's interesting that you talk in the singular "god/deity/creator" when monotheism - as a theory of the universe - is historically something of a rarity. Consider every religion that has come and gone in the 12,000 years of organised human civilization and beyond the Abrahamic conception of Yahweh/Allah there aren't too many more monotheistic religions. It's been traditionally unusual to view the universe - or nature more specifically - as the work of a single, omnipresent God. Just because we're conditioned to think - as a result of the cultures in which we live - that belief in a single God is the default spiritual perspective, keep in mind that before a few thousand years ago (when the first Jews arrived on the scene) such an idea would have seemed bizzare.
Anyway, perhaps we should start up a new topic to discuss all this? |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
But that's only because it can't be disproved given that God is defined inversely to that which we know. Whereas God was once an anthropological being who enjoyed talking through burning bushes and smiting people, he is now an ill-defined "vapour" permeating the universe and doing little to interfere with human civilization. It's the God of the Gaps theory: whatever we don't know is just filled up with "God probably did it". When we didn't understand solar eclipses, it was the work of God. When we didn't understand disease, it was the work of God. Whereas God was once the explanation for a great many events, with the advent of the scientific process, he is now merely the "being" (I use the term "being" quite loosely) that created the universe and not much else.
Carl Sagan wrote in Demon Haunted World (a recommended read by the way) that we should always be wary of theories that cannot be disproven. Evolution is a good theory, because there is plenty of evidence that could turn up that would render it invalid (namely finding dinosaur remains in the same rock strata as early human remains). Same with Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: the recent discovery that the speed of light may have been slightly faster in the past may call into question some areas of this theory for instance (E=MC^2? Does it matter if C is a variable rather than a constant?). The theory that I have an invisible dragon in my garage that you can't see, hear, smell, taste or touch is a bad theory - there is no test we can run that can render it invalid. It doesn't mean that it isn't there, just that the way I've defined this "dragon" means that its existence cannot possibly be confirmed or denied. Even if someone invented a machine that can detect invisible dragons, it wouldn't be hard to invent an excuse as to why the tests performed in my garage turned up negative. And you can draw the parellels here between dragons and gods. Before I can start taking the concept of God seriously I'd firstly need a definitive definition of who or what God is and some ideas about what evidence or knowledge it would take to render God falsifiable.
Also, I think it's interesting that you talk in the singular "god/deity/creator" when monotheism - as a theory of the universe - is historically something of a rarity. Consider every religion that has come and gone in the 12,000 years of organised human civilization and beyond the Abrahamic conception of Yahweh/Allah there aren't too many more monotheistic religions. It's been traditionally unusual to view the universe - or nature more specifically - as the work of a single, omnipresent God. Just because we're conditioned to think - as a result of the cultures in which we live - that belief in a single God is the default spiritual perspective, keep in mind that before a few thousand years ago (when the first Jews arrived on the scene) such an idea would have seemed bizzare.
Anyway, perhaps we should start up a new topic to discuss all this? |
I agree 100% with your above statements. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
Re Renegade's post: Nice post, with great points. I do not agree on the basic definitions, though, which might explain why my views differ from those of yours on this topic (which we have debated several times before if my memory serves me correctly;)).
First, I will take issue with your view on being wary of theories that cannot be disproven. If by "being wary" you mean "not accept as true" I agree to the full extent of your post, but I never advocated that scientists should accept the theory of a god as true. My beef is with scientists who reject it based on no evidence. You might argue that the law of the excluded middle applies to "accept" and "reject", and then we disagree on a fundamental level. To me there is a huge gap between what I accept as truth and what I reject, and in this gap the existence of god, ghosts, intelligent r'n'b-fans, and the Loch Ness monster falls.
If, however, by "being wary" you mean "reject", I fail to see why this should be so. After all, we accept tautologies as being solid theories, even if their validity seemingly cannot be disproved and is grounded in pure logic - one of the most abstract non-empirical lines of reasoning known to man. I do have Sagan's book lying around somewhere (bought it the last time you mentioned it, but never had the time to read it), and it might be a revelation, although right now I cannot see any justification for *rejecting* a theory based on the fact that no one has thought of a test which can disprove it.
Second, if god is defined as the all penetrating vapour which explains exactly the phenomena we cannot explain by any other means, then I agree with your critique. However, I - for one - do not define god in this way. God, to me, would rather be something along "purpose" or "intend", although those words do not cover my conception of the term. In fact, I cannot define god in any precise human terms - whether that be danish, english, or german - überhaubt nicht!
To me, a great array of words, such as "love", "injustice", "interest", and "god" are axioms of my worldview. I know what they mean to me, but I cannot communicate that to anyone else, but have to rely on their ideas to match those of mine. I assume that you cannot define "love" yourself, and by a similar line of reasoning as presented by you, I might advice others to reject the theory "love exists and makes humans do stupid things", as it cannot be disproved. My intuition tells me that this theory is sound, though, but then again "intuition" is an axiom of my worldview and you might disagree :).
As to the monotheism, you are right, I should have chosen my words with greater care. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
this was just published today:
Norway Tops United Nations' Quality of Life Index
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ment_index_dc_2
| quote: |
The top ranked nations were: Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Australia, Netherlands, Belgium, United States, Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Denmark, Ireland, Britain, Finland, Luxembourg, Austria, France, Germany, Spain and New Zealand.
Those with low development rankings, from 156th to 175th place, were: Senegal, Guinea, Rwanda, Benin, Tanzania, Ivory Coast, Malawi, Zambia, Angola, Chad, Guinea-Bissau, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Burundi, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and Sierra Leone.
|
thoughts? comments? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: |
But Canada, which had been in first place in the overall index of 175 countries for seven years until 2001, conducted its own poll, apparently timed to the U.N. report.
Canadian media reported that 89 percent of the country had an "absolute conviction that we have a better quality of life than the United States."
|
LOL kinda sounds sore loserish.
But at any rate, like I said before, the differences between the top 10 countries are miniscule and unimportant as the index differnces are fractions of a point at that level. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
LOL kinda sounds sore loserish.
|
hah tru i thought that as well .. i think some ppl here actually took offense when they were told that we ranked below the US. I think this index does more for pride and face than it does in actual real world scenarios. |
|
|
| sash |
| quote: | Originally posted by sp0k4ne
?
It's the best in anything
however, I hope see the USA evolve into a hyper-power someday, a machine |
it's not the best at ping pong playing |
|
|
| Alccode |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Canadian media reported that 89 percent of the country had an "absolute conviction that we have a better quality of life than the United States."
|
Hmm... the statement, "Country X's media reported that 89 percent of the country had an 'absolute conviction that we have a better quality of life than Country Y'" will hold true no matter what X and Y are. :rolleyes:
I therefore dismiss this Canadian report. What they should have done, was do a survey or study outside of Canada, and then see what the results were. |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
| quote: | | What's the best country to live in? |
I'd say either Congo or Sierra Leone. |
|
|
|
|
