Invoking The Voyagers Against Id |
Invoking The Voyagers Against Id |
Oct 24 2005, 03:04 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2454 Joined: 8-July 05 From: NGC 5907 Member No.: 430 |
Cornell President Rawlings Condemns Intelligent Design
Drawing from sources ranging from Cornell's founders to Voyager space missions, Interim President Hunter R. Rawlings III condemned the push to teach intelligent design in public schools Friday. The attack came during the president's State of... http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/...4/435c7762cf891 "The desire to understand the world and the desire to reform it are the two great engines of progress." - Bertrand Russell -------------------- "After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance. I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard, and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft." - Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853 |
|
|
Guest_Richard Trigaux_* |
Oct 30 2005, 07:30 PM
Post
#2
|
Guests |
I would add that, to somewhat recenter the topic on something more or less related to space, that some purpose (if not ID) could be incorporated into cosmological scenarios.
Today most accepted cosmology theories study how the physical universe evolves from an intitial state (the singularity at the big bang). But they do not tell why this singularity exists. I say exists in the present tense, as, at this moment, time as we experience it has no meaning, so the question is "why the universe exists" and not "why it appeared". (to be exact some speculations are made about "before the Big bang", most of them predicting that many universe can exist). Today accepted theories about life evolution say that this evolution is an auto-formative process, which can create complex structures from mere simplicity. This goes straight against the idea of Intelligent Design, as self-formative processes can generate structures which much ressemble very clever engineer designs for far reached purposes. So thinking, like literalists do, that life forms were designed by God is today really very naïve and it is understandable that it makes biology scientists angry. So if there is really a God and a purpose, it is not to be seek into biology processes. It is obviously something deeply related to consciousness, meaning of life and eventually happiness. Is this matter related to cosmology and the existence of this universe? Do only exist universes where life evolves toward consciousness and wisdom, or do exist any universes with no life? If an universe contains no scientists to observe it, does it exist? |
|
|
Oct 30 2005, 08:46 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Dublin Correspondent Group: Admin Posts: 1799 Joined: 28-March 05 From: Celbridge, Ireland Member No.: 220 |
QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ Oct 30 2005, 08:30 PM) So thinking, like literalists do, that life forms were designed by God is today really very naïve and it is understandable that it makes biology scientists angry. So if there is really a God and a purpose, it is not to be seek into biology processes. It is obviously something deeply related to consciousness, meaning of life and eventually happiness. Is this matter related to cosmology and the existence of this universe? Do only exist universes where life evolves toward consciousness and wisdom, or do exist any universes with no life? If an universe contains no scientists to observe it, does it exist? There certainly are extremely intriguing questions facing us that are so difficult to encompass that they can only be dealt with by hypothesis and, dare I say it, belief: The nature of consciousness; what exactly is spirituality?; if there was a big bang then how do you deal with the concept of "before the big bang" ?. Speciation (and evolution) is so solid as a theory that it certainly does not qualify as an area that can't be wholly understood from a rational scientific point of view. The current discussions on whether or not the "Pioneer anomoly" or any other data from current probes can provide data that will force us to adjus our current Newtonian\Einsteinian theory of gravity don't qualify either as all of these are perfectly manageable within the context of standard rational scientific investigation. We can make falsifiable predictions, investigate and get answers that prove or refute the assertions. We can (and do) carry out experiments and create accurate theoretical models. No doubt there are researchers out there pushing the edge of the envelope on understanding the mind who are preparing a scientifically rational model as I type but I haven't come across any yet. Likewise there are plenty of Cosmologists who are foaming at the mouth at my earlier comment as they say that there is no such thing as "before the big bang" so the question is meaningless but that just doesn't cut the mustard for me as that requires me to believe that well, it all just started which is logically equivalent to "God did it" in my book. Spirituality is one that I have difficulty with because I don't understand it or empathise with it as a concept at all. Frankly I don't see the need (personally) which makes it very hard for me to take discussions on it seriously. Why does there need to be a higher purpose? After all very little that we see on earth or in the universe makes it seem at all likely that such a "Higher Purpose", if it exists, is anything but a very, very cruel purpose indeed. Why have predators and prey? Diseases? Death? What purpose do the myriad of hugely destructive forces in the universe have apart from just being forces? Personally I think I'd have a hard time remaining sane if I thought there was a "higher purpose" because I cannot see how such a thing could have any hand in the way things are. So I remain a happy rational atheist for the time being even though I have no explanation for how I'm able to think and cannot for the life of me get my head around why "what happened before the big bang" is a meaningless question. |
|
|
Oct 31 2005, 02:27 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3419 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Member No.: 15 |
QUOTE (helvick @ Oct 30 2005, 03:46 PM) ...Likewise there are plenty of Cosmologists who are foaming at the mouth at my earlier comment as they say that there is no such thing as "before the big bang" so the question is meaningless... Actually, some of the more recent cosmological theories propose that our entire Universe consists of a membrane which floats through a matrix of higher physical dimensions. It is but one of many such membranes, and the sudden creation of all of the matter and energy within the Universe occurred when our membrane touched another membrane, some 12 to 15 billion years ago. I certainly don't understand all the math, but there are apparently mathematical descriptions of all this that show it could maybe be the path via which quantum behaviors at small particle levels can be reconciled with Einsteinian general relativity at macro levels. But one of the things that is appealing (at least to scientific rationalists) about the membrane theory is that it allows for a "before the Big Bang." Instead of making the Big Bang a singularity that cannt be examined or evaluated on any rational level, it makes it simply the logical consequence of some other natural event. -the other Doug -------------------- “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Guest_Richard Trigaux_* |
Oct 31 2005, 08:27 AM
Post
#5
|
Guests |
QUOTE (dvandorn @ Oct 31 2005, 02:27 AM) Actually, some of the more recent cosmological theories propose that our entire Universe consists of a membrane which floats through a matrix of higher physical dimensions. It is but one of many such membranes, and the sudden creation of all of the matter and energy within the Universe occurred when our membrane touched another membrane, some 12 to 15 billion years ago. It is fairly easy to understand without maths, if you consider a 3D universe (as the one we are familiar with) containing spheres (2D spherical surfaces) called branes. These spheres are roaming about, and when two meet, their intersection is a circle. (A one dimentional surface looping on itself). With the movement of the branes, this circle starts from a zero radius, then the radius increases very fast (the speed tends toward infinite when we approach time zero) and then much quieter. It is easy to build a mental image of this. Then you just add two more dimentions to all of these objects: we are no more able to build mental images of them, but basically things work the same. This hypothesis gives a strikingly understandable vision of the early universe, especially of inflation. From a metaphysical point of view, this theory just eludes to a nearby infinity the question of the beginning of time, and it does not solve the question "why this universe exists", just sending to "why the brane universe exists". Things could be like that, but if so it would just add mistery. On the countrary general relativity can fairly easily envision curved space and beginning of time without any need of a higher dimentionnal space to contain all of them. But physics too has an argument against this theory: the inflation would obey a power law, when observation shows an exponential law (as far as we can observe this). Our mind has strong difficulties to envision a reality where time would not exist, or would have a beginning. But it could happen that things are really like that. It is not so difficult after all: mathematic theorems exist in a realm where there is no time. We cannot say that a mathematic theorem appeared at a given epoch! |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 12th June 2024 - 08:21 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |