RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken

RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

WhipTheHip -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 10:35:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuddleheart50 I may be wrong, but we all have to believe in something. I believe I'll have a beer. Hitler and Stalin both had faith in their beliefs. Blind faith is wonderful. You have blind faith in your programming, and you claim humans have free will???

WhipTheHip -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 10:37:55 AM)
Most humans are robots. Most humans behavior is more predictable than robots behavior. Heck, I never know what my robot will do next, and I programmed it.

cuddleheart50 -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 10:38:32 AM)
Whip, dont try and change the way I feel about things, Its not gonna happen, you are wasting your time. And yes, I have blind faith. and I will keep it, thank you very much.

Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 10:39:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip The wave-function psi is completely described by Schrodinger's equation and is 100% deterministic. Ah, then Schrödinger predicts both the velocity and the location of an individual particle precisely when the wave function is collapsed? The last time I checked, quantum mechanics was statistically deterministic only when large numbers of particles are involved. This has changed all of a sudden, so that now it is no longer quantum mechanics, but newtonian mechanics that quantum mechanicians use to describe the behavior of individual subatomic particles? I am stunned. I must have missed the news broadcast.

WhipTheHip -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 10:41:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuddleheart50 No, I havent read anything about free will. Nothing at all.... Its just common sense to me. Common sense is all the prejudices we acquired by the age of 18. --Einstein

anthrosub -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 10:41:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule There never was a Big Bang. The Big Bang is not a fact, but an interpretation of a few observed phenomena. In my book I proposed (not proved) a different, "classical" explanation for each of those phenomena. In fact (these days I do not pay attention to these things, but I do infrequently pick up some news) astrophysicists and cosmologists are starting to feel very uncomfortable about their beloved Big Bang theology. I consider Big Bang propaganda the acts of desperate men. (Of course they in their turn will call me a cook or a crank, but what do they know?) With the renewed attention on String Theory, everything has been called into question...including the Big Bang. From what I've learned about String Theory, scientists have finally been able to produce an equation that successfully combines Einstien's work with Quantum Mechanics. This was achieved only in the past 20 years or so, so it's still a very new theory under examination. The most important issue however, is that if "strings" do exist they are impossible to detect due to how small they are. But the overall work so far consistently points in the direction of strings. This is not wishful thinking or somebody pulling something out of thin air and it's on that basis that I would put more stock in String Theory as a viable pursuit in understanding the nature of the universe. As a side note to those more informed about this subject. I recently saw a news article that a mathmatician somewhere in Eastern Europe has successfully constructed an equation that shows it is possible to transform an object with a hole in it (like a donut) into a solid object without a hole (like a ball), without tearing the object (as in biting out a portion of the donut eliminating the hole). This "problem" was previously considered to be a stumbling block in understanding the physics of the universe but now appears to be solved. anthrosub

WhipTheHip -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 10:46:46 AM)
> I remember asking my mother once, as a child, why God would allow someone to > be born as retarded, deaf or blind, or live in extreme poverty. I forget what prompted > the question, but I very clearly remember her response to me. She said: "To enable > people encountering them to develop their patience and compassion." I thought that > was a good answer Why does God allow some humans to torture others out of their mind, while not allowing other humans to do anything bad? Why did God allow the Aztecs and other primitive tribes to bury people up to their necks in and let them slowly die or slowly drown?

cuddleheart50 -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 10:48:40 AM)
God does not allow us to torture others, humans make that choice to do so. not God.

WhipTheHip -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 10:52:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule > Ah, then Schrödinger predicts both the velocity and the location of an > individual particle precisely when the wave function is collapsed? The wave-function never collapses. > The last time I checked, quantum mechanics was statistically > deterministic only when large numbers of particles are involved. You are thinking of Bohr's and Heisenberg's contrived, ad hoc interpretation of QM which leads to dozens of paradoxes which I noted at length in another thread. > so that now it is no longer quantum mechanics It is still QM. It just no longer has the paradoxes created by Bohr's and Heisenberg's faulty assumptions. > I am stunned. I must have missed the news broadcast. I guess so.

WhipTheHip -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 10:58:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuddleheart50 God does not allow us to torture others, humans make that choice to do so. not God. Your honor, it is not my fault one of my children tortured another of my children in front of my eyes for weeks on-end and I did nothing. That was the choice one of my children made, it wasn't my choice. Yes, I could have stopped one of my children from torturing the other to death, but then I would have taken free choice away from them. You do understand your Honor, I am really not a bad person. I am really very moral. I mean if I hadn't let one child torture the other to death, then how could I reward them in the after life.

cuddleheart50 -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 11:01:53 AM)
You are a funny man Whip, and very funny man.

SusanofO -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 11:06:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule There never was a Big Bang. The Big Bang is not a fact, * I thought Noah covered pretty well what constitutes "fact" - and that's only if you realize that causality itself is a theory. I never said it was - I merely re-printed part of a magazine article. I'd never positied it as anything other than a proposition just like any other proposition. I also think a close reading of the article makes it relatively clear that some scientiests, (maybe even the ones who helped investigate the "Big Bang" theory may not themsleves be fully convinced it's "fact" - merely viewing it as another theory or scientific proposition, much as yourself, within the framework of astronomy (or qauntumm physics as it intereacts with astronomical phenomena), they feel driven or impelled to investigate - because tthye simply enjoy the field, it's their job, etc. but an interpretation of a few observed phenomena. Okay a "few" then (whatever that word may mean) In my book I proposed (not proved) a different, "classical" explanation for each of those phenomena. In fact (these days I do not pay attention to these things, but I do infrequently pick up some news) astrophysicists and cosmologists are starting to feel very uncomfortable about their beloved Big Bang theology. I consider Big Bang propaganda the acts of desperate men. (Of course they in their turn will call me a cook or a crank, but what do they know?) I mean no disrespect (truly) by the following but am merely asking, Rule: * If you only infrequently pick up some news, how do you conclude that "astrophysicists and cosmologists" (and since you didn't qualify this with the word "some" I am going to assume you mean "all" of them) - are starting to "feel uncomfortable with their beloved Big Bang Theory" - where's the evidence for that conclusion? It's your opinion, obviously (which is fine. Everyone has them. So do astrophysicists and cosmologists. I never really viewed it as "propoganda" - just simply another theory of how the universe developed - unless someone is trying to posit they see it as evidence that will prove ultimately and forever that God exists one way or the other, I'd not view it as "propoganda", although I am sure it can be interpreted that way by many. Otherwise, I'd tend to view it as a theory with some heavily investigated and supported evidence to back it up - that is neither "absolutely right" or "absolutely wrong". I understand what you may be saying, but personally I tend to think that perhaps desperate men might interpet some scientists naming their views of the origin of the universe as a "deseprate" act of "propoganda". Do you think that the discovery of, and investigating how stars may have formed, merely investigating how they perhaps formed, is an act of desperate men? I see it simply as human curiosity at work. My view: "Desperate" only if you think that there are No astronomers or physicists who believe in spirituality, apparently (which I a sure isn't true - and that I can posit with some assurance). And if you view investigation of the universe, as a Godless realm, that kind of cancels out your idea of what constitutes spirituality to begin with, mightn't it? I see even this as somewhat as circular reasoning, but since I know this is true of all interpretations of what consititues "reality" , the "truth" and other absolutist terms, I'll roll with it. Viewing the Big Bang as "propoganda" suggests to me that it might be viewed from the point of view of someone with an ulterior motive to "prove" some other theory is "more right". I know this is common,(and I don't really care) but I thought Noah covered in his post pretty well that a lot of accepted science is no longer viewed as theory but as fact, not because it is fact, but simply because it's been around for so long, and accepted by so many. Maybe you think this is true of the Big Bang theory (or assume that all astrophysicist think this. If so, I am not sure it is true they all think this, or know how you could be).This could even be true of some scientists who believe in quantum theory. Some scientists believe in string theory who don't believe in the Big Bang. I know some scientists believed the Earth was flat until some others "proved" them wrong, etc., etc. ad infinitum What is the name of your book, btw? I think we can agree that some "classical" theories can be construed as less, or more, logically believable - depending on what the source is, how they are contructed, and who is viewing the theory, and who you ask. Not that "logic" is going to prove much, in this particular case, for reasons already well-covered. - Susan

SusanofO -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 11:43:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip > I remember asking my mother once, as a child, why God would allow someone to > be born as retarded, deaf or blind, or live in extreme poverty. I forget what prompted > the question, but I very clearly remember her response to me. She said: "To enable > people encountering them to develop their patience and compassion." I thought that > was a good answer Why does God allow some humans to torture others out of their mind, while not allowing other humans to do anything bad? Why did God allow the Aztecs and other primitive tribes to bury people up to their necks in and let them slowly die or slowly drown? * What makes you think that it couldn't be for the same reason? It's a fair question, but I think the answer is pretty apparent, if you think about it (to me it is. I am not trying to sound "snippy", either). I think all humans do things that coud be construed as "good" and also as "bad" - and can influence eachother as well, in ways that could be construed as "evil" or "good. Or not. And toward many different ends, motivated for different reasons. There is a phenomena known as "groupthink", for lack of a better phrase just now, that I think can be pretty pervasive within almost any given social social context as well, sometimes I'd go into more detail about, but am tired and have to take a nap). On this point, I agree with Rule, and I know what he meant when he said, "to make fire, you must burn wood" (but am putting it in a spiritual context, I guess). Don't you? There is no such thing as a perfect person, is there? Even in the second World War when Hitler and Nazi Germany were humming along there were victinms as well as heroic people hiding would-be holocaust victims? Even now? During what "age" do you think such things have not taken place, to some degree or other? Do you think even during times like these, humans perhaps possessed, and some perhaps even retained and displayed, a capacity to be well-intentioned, as well as not so well-intentioned? I also do not believe that it's a noble idea to not attempt to judge other people until we've "walked a mile in their shoes" (but I see people do it more than occasionally, even including me, sometimes). But, I do think it can have something to do with a lack if compassion. And judgmentalism, to name two things that could be in operation. What's to not understand? [:)] - Susan

WhipTheHip -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 11:57:27 AM)
> * What makes you think that it couldn't be for the same reason? > It's a fair question, but I think the answer is pretty apparent, if you think > about it (to me it is. I am not trying to sound "snippy", either). I think > all humans do things that coud be construed as "good" and also as "bad" - > and can influence each other as well, in ways that could be construed > as "evil" or "good. Or not. And toward many different ends, motivated > for different reasons. There is a phenomena known as "groupthink", > for lack of a better phrase just now, that I think can be pretty pervasive > within almost any given social social context as well, sometimes I'd > go into more detail about, but am tired and have to take a nap). > On this point, I agree with Rule, and I know what he meant when he > said, "to make fire, you must burn wood" God can make fire without burning wood. He is supposed to be omnipotent. > What's to not understand? - Susan Susan, do know what it is like to really be tortured??? Take the most painful experience you have had and multiply a trillion times. Now imagine existing in that state 24 hours a day without any hope of the pain ever stopping. Imagine no one in the world caring. You think a kind, moral, compassionate, loving, all-powerful God could allow such a thing??? If so, words means something different to you than they mean to me.

SusanofO -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 12:09:29 PM)
Yes,WhiptheHip if it took "expertise" in how to raise children to bear them, the world might indeed be a better place. Which parents are you referring to? Do you have an idea of any of their particular pressures, or burdens in life? Because I see making such decisions about anything related to this kind of thing as very situational, and taking extra care in judgment about the people involved therein. I don't know any perfect people (but do know some with what I consider questionable judgment re "child raising "techniques") If you are asking me to judge all parents everywhere to be construed as "bad", or "good" for that matter, I am not going to do it. I just don't deal with well with "black and white" thinkers. There are exceptions to what anyone might consider "bad parenting". Andrea Yates is a perfect example of someone who was well-intentioned at first, and went insane. Her "fault" for becoming insane? I dont think so. Some wanted to hang for killing her unmentionables. Yeah she did kill them, she's "guilty" - but she was out of her mind when she did -where was her husband when all this was developing? It's tragic that it happened, he maybe did try to help. I could cry buckets over it, but it won't guarantee the situation won't happen somewhere, sometime again (it probably is right now, somewhere on the planet). I just don't have the energy right now to go into all f the ramifications associated with judging other people's actions that would involve "licensing" people to become parents, and who would decide who is "fit" to be one (although I admit there have been occasions the idea has crossed my mind at the shelter where I volunteer). It's pretty much seen as an inalienable right - the right to procreate (except in China, with the one child policy, and other places I might not be aware of). What can I tell you? The world can be a big fat depressing sewer sometimes. But, it can also be pretty wonderful. Welcome to life in planet Earth. If it was heaven already, what would be the point in enduring it? Not that I believe the point is to suffer - I think part of the point is to enjoy it, but maybe mostly to just learn something, or many things, and that's why people change, or not, their attitudes, ways of dealing with the wolrd, looking at the world, during a lifetime. Because they are experincing it, it affects them, and sometimes in what may be contrued as "good" and sometimes "not as good" ways. They make choices about how to feel and think - and other people can influence that, to a greater or lesser degree, or not, due to well-intentioned motivations, or ill-intentioned motivations. I think maybe one reason people are here is to refine their character, to hone it by over-coming challenges that may be specific to them only, as individuals. But also to simply enjoy it. But I think standing in absolute judgment and complete and utter condemnation of other people's motivations, in the day to day, can be spiritual "trap". Not to mention I don't think it motivates people toward any change, as in "growth". - Susan [:)]

SusanofO -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 12:36:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhipTheHip Susan, do know what it is like to really be tortured??? Take the most painful experience you have had and multiply a trillion times. Now imagine existing in that state 24 hours a day without any hope of the pain ever stopping. Imagine no one in the world caring. You think a kind, moral, compassionate, loving, all-powerful God could allow such a thing??? If so, words means something different to you than they mean to me. * That's okay. Maybe they do. "Words", if you haven't noticed, can mean many things to different people. Simply because everyone is different. I hope you won't let it come between us in any drastic way, though, WhiptheHip. Yes, I do. I explained that my concept of a higer power as a force that is reponsible for the existence of the universe is that It seems like a "hands off' power in many ways, and in some ways seems to be very close by. Make of that what you will. I have never been tortured the way you describe, but have a very vivid imagination of what that might be like to feel. Nobody necessarily wants to change what you believe. I certainly have no personal stake in it. I don't care if you want to declare and label yourself a theist, an atheist, an agnostic, a monotheist who sometimes fels "spitirtual", or a paratheist (? wait is there such a thing?). Or a wiccan, a Catholic monk, any kind of protestant, jewish, Hindu, Muslim, and the list goes on. Do what ever your big heart desires. - Susan [:)]

Level -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 12:36:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuddleheart50 Noah, You are one long winded man! [:D] A bright one, too.

cuddleheart50 -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 12:40:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: cuddleheart50 Noah, You are one long winded man! [:D] A bright one, too. Of course, that goes without saying.

Chaingang -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 1:27:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Noah "Elwood?" Elwood P. Dowd, from the beloved play and film "Harvey." Elwood seems to believe in a Pooka, a mythical creature that takes the form of a rather large rabbit and that likes to go drinking with him. But is it true? quote: ORIGINAL: Noah If the subject at hand is the existence or non-existence of that which created all things, and if logic is a thing, well how in the heck can one expect logical analysis to tell that tale? Well, for starters this isn't too far from my own agnostic position so I am not really opposed. But... I found most of your comments about the limits of logic to be primarily about the following: 1. not limits in logic, but limits in ourselves (our way of thinking about a problem, e.g. computational algorithms) 2. issues of a specific area of interest 3. problems of mathematical syntax 4. epistemological conundrums (because science actually takes the extra step and doubts itself, it specifically asks: "how do we know what we know?) ...and while science has yet to resolve those issues, religion provides no answers on those questions whatever nor does it hope to. Religion never doubts itself nor its fundamental assertions. Religion is always just a long string of assertions. Take it as it is, or leave it. That's hardly a plus in favor of religion. By contrast, science does ask those questions and attempt to resolve apparent paradoxes, and given the methods of science there is at least a fighting chance that we can someday have satisfactory resolutions to those perplexing issues. science is flexible - ever expanding and adapting to new information as it becomes known. ----- As to this whole "free will" issue, my observation is that we are meat puppets. Sad but true. If I take away certain hormones and other chemicals from your body, you die like a grape on a withered vine. If I hamstring you I just cut the puppet strings in your legs. If I slice across the tops of your forearms suddenly the fingers no longer work. You are your nervous system. You are the chemical interactions in your nervous system. ----- Ethics? The Abrahamic faiths teach the myth of genocide: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=406678 The ethic of reciprocity, or the "The Golden Rule" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity [N.B. This ethical principle is culture based but also quite universal. It is not exclusively from the domain of religion that this idea derives, secular philosophers and legal ethicists also consider this a foundational principle.] ----- Bottom line: Let's for a moment assume all things are equal in terms of believing or not believing in the old man upstairs. What's the point? Power for a few? Comfort for those that need to be told comforting lies? Religion doesn't bake bread, explain how to build a house, or take the approx. measure of a circle - those are things you can only do with the sciences.

SusanofO -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 1:33:03 PM)
Oops, didn't mean for this post to come up. Please ignore. [:)] - Susan

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875