LinuxQuestions.org
Download your favorite Linux distribution at LQ ISO.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


View Poll Results: You are a...
firm believer 199 29.61%
Deist 21 3.13%
Theist 26 3.87%
Agnostic 132 19.64%
Atheist 294 43.75%
Voters: 672. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-23-2018, 01:31 AM   #8116
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,957

Rep: Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855

LOL still "here" in concrete land are we? We can't see air either sundial ol' buddy but it is hardly speculation that it exists. We can't see bacteria and viruses either but while it took centuries we did get evidence that makes that just a wee bit more than speculation, don't you think?. As for Higgs I have to ask if you could manage to throw dice over 6,000,000 times and 5,999,900 times they came up Snake Eyes, would it be speculation to conclude the dice were weighted, magnetized or really sticky?

Incidentally regarding the all too human tendency to have biased expectations for experimental results, thankfully the Scientific Method has evolved to where that is quite self-correcting. It started perhaps when one of Noah's family said "That doesn't look like exactly 30 cubits to me, Dad" and the only way to settle it was to measure it with a standardized measuring device.

On a much more demonstrative (and more serious) scale is the fairly recent event wherin a number of astronomers did a major (and cross-checked) study for a really accurate measurement of the exact speed at which the Universe is expanding. Because of Big Bang it was universally expected (no pun intended) that they would see how much the expansion is slowing down after nearly 14,000,000,000 years. To their complete shock, which caused a flurry of additional testing and widespread efforts to "poison the data" before long it was necessary to drop the preconceived notion and accept that it is speeding up which required a completely hitherto unknown force to make that happen. That resulted in precise measurements of how much there would have to be of whatever it was to produce the observed results and take the humbling slap in the face that we can currently perceive only about 10% of what energy and matter populate our Universe. It is worthy of note that such a devastating discovery nobody wanted to accept was finally accepted nevertheless. Science views mistakes and failure as part of the learning process. It is not feared nor avoided just because it's inconvenient to human sensibilities.

Last edited by enorbet; 02-23-2018 at 01:48 AM.
 
Old 04-16-2018, 01:04 PM   #8117
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170
The Myths of Evolution

When Charles Darwin penned his Origin of Species, he was engaging in an academic exercise well-known to his audience: "scientific philosophy." He was speculatively exploring what could not be observed, based on what could be observed and readily verified. One of the principles of this exercise is to see how far one can go without "apparent contradiction," and to explore why you think so.

Observing the natural phenomenon of evolution, he (I think, quite rightly ...) fingered as the "Origin of Species." He first reiterated what was already observable (and many times observed), and asserted that this was sufficient to explain "species."

Next, he ventured onto purely philosophical grounds, carefully observing the established protocols for doing so. He continued to explore what else this principle might also explain. "How far might this go without any apparent-to-the-philosopher contradiction?" He, and others, speculated that it might in fact account for all of the diversity of life on Earth. He observed that many creatures are very similar to others, which of course is the entire basis of the taxonomy from "Kingdom" to "Species." Humans are remarkably similar to apes and monkeys.

(Arrogant creatures that we are, we inevitably conclude that we have "advantages" over them. Apes and monkeys, however, might disagree: they don't have inflation, income taxes, cell phones, or CNN.)

It was implicitly understood that this cannot say, "this is true." Rather, it can only say, "it is not apparent to me why this is necessarily false," while exploring the boundaries of why such a statement could (or could not) be made and in the opinion of the philosopher.

In this, however, I think that he went too far. I think that there is an "apparent contradiction" with what we observe in nature. Here's why.

When we observe the reproduction of sexual forms of life, we quickly notice that not everything can successfully mate with ... well, most things. Pandas can only mate with pandas, and when a panda gives birth, a rabbit never pops out. On the very rare occasion when different forms of life can mate, and with very few exceptions, their offspring – such as mules – are sterile. We also observe that sometimes pregnancy is spontaneously aborted – miscarriage. From this I conclude that there are in fact many biological mechanisms that are designed to prevent animals from reproducing except "after their own kind," and for detecting and destroying life-forms that have gone wrong.

(Asexual forms of life, such as bacteria – and non-life such as viruses – do exhibit many variations and produce many offspring that are not viable. Even so, there are fairly-stable species here, too. We don't know why.)

We know that many strange things happen in utero. Humans, for example, grow a tail and then reabsorb it. At one point they appear to have gills. But the final baby is almost always "normal," if it survives to full-term. We realize that this crying baby has passed a veritable gantlet of error-correcting mechanisms to get here.

This, to me, is a compelling argument against the notion that "evolution" is the origin of anything other than "species." In that capacity it serves a very valuable "self-tuning" function. But it is obviously very-tightly constrained. Not only do I think that it is not the true source of life's diversity, but I think that it is equipped with constraints that expressly prevent it from being so.

We know that biologic processes are based on chemistry and we know that errors happen all the time. The processes are filled with error-detection and error-correction mechanisms of all sorts, some of which we know about and some of which we don't yet. This is why the world is filled with viable, surviving, life-forms ... not dead or dying mistakes. Without these mechanisms, errors would accumulate and life would cease.

I think that the hypothesis of "evolution explains everything" overlooks the reality that such a world would be littered with these mistakes for every millionth creature that was somehow a new, novel, and viable form of life ... "both male and female versions, if you please." Bacteria would have a field day eating those mistakes that never could have survived in the first place, but nothing else would benefit from this stupendous waste of perfectly good proteins.

We have a name for a process that produces a valuable result from random chance. We call it, "a lottery." It gives me a reason to pick up the trash at the foot of my driveway every week, since I live a few blocks down the street from a convenience store.

So, what is the origin of the stunning diversity of life on this planet? I don't know. Some say that it's the work of deity; some say, completed in six days or maybe two. I think that it's the product of an unknown mechanism that we have never observed. Since we have never observed it, and have never yet made it happen, we don't know that it exists. We don't know if it is a thing of the past or if it continues to happen on this planet today.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 04-17-2018 at 06:56 PM.
 
Old 04-16-2018, 04:14 PM   #8118
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,957

Rep: Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855
Thank you Sundial. That was a very well thought out and worded post both clear and concise. Your post does tell the story quite well because self-correction is an important part of the "reins' on evolution that keep it on a fairly tight leash. However it does miss a few tiny details... details that take more than a single lifetime to resolve so not necessarily easy for a layman, like you and I in this field, to spot. We have to rely on others who find this question(s) so compelling they make it their life's work, spending large sums of money on equipment and samples to collect enough long term data to get some answers. Thankfully, like all actually scientific evidence, it has already been subjected to extreme peer review, often by individuals who 'have a dog in that race" and would prefer any other "dog" lose. It is still a contender despite those equally well-funded and brained efforts.

Although it might be interesting to discover how mules came about, whether the first few were from natural cross-breeding or from human intervention, but the facts most recently uncovered seem to say the the Family Tree we were all taught in High School and College is actually far more likely to be akin to a trellis, branching out and then back, remixing, and branching out again possibly to recombine, and evolve, later. Given the broad fundamental drive that is sexuality among all such species this sort of sexually opportunistic mixing makes sense but that so few viable hybrids result also makes sense and confirms your general observation.... but for the tiny details.

Yes, mules and many, possibly even most, hybrids are sterile but not ALL of them. One example of this has been mentioned before in the form of the Texas Red wolf, a hybrid between wolves and coyotes. Recently discovered and already so solid it has caused predictions that have been fortified by actual hard evidence, there is a vast amount, and mounting, evidence that modern humans mixed with neanderthals as well other precursor hybrids.

This makes sense in a much larger context as well considering there have been many mass extinctions and a few with losses well above 80% of all life on Earth. Most of the longest surviving creatures have been either underground or underwater like crocodiles, horseshoe crabs, ants and cockroaches. We know that the odds for our existence as we are today were extremely small until an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs and most large land bound animals. Thankfully for us, our mouse-like ancestors lived mostly underground and found themselves lucky to no longer be hunted by so many smart, large, fast and deadly predators, but we were not alone.

In the last 550 Million years there have been at least 20 mass extinctions in which over 50% of all species were no more. A few approached 90% total extinction. Each time diversity returned powered by a new environment created by that which at first, destroyed.

It is difficult for a human being to embrace the totality of even a single human lifetime, even of a few decades which is why our childhoods can seem like "just yesterday" in one moment and a whole other lifetime in another. To attempt to deal with even 100 years in any kind of concrete manner is a huge stretch, maybe impossible at least in concrete terms. We can deal with 1,000 years in an abstract way but even with our massive reserves of historical doumentation and study, it still remains quite abstract. 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 1,000.000,000? 4,000,000,000? These are completely outside anything concrete to our puny POV so they are impossible to just feel. It makes no immediate sense. It is only our ability to think in the abstract that makes it even remotely possible to even contemplate, but doing that it at least becomes obvious that this is an immense block of time, time for even tiny details to add up and, well, multiply.

I am proving a few links here that I suspect you will at the very least find interesting.

--- Neanderthals and the Trellis of Life ---

--- MacroEvolution ---

--- Mass Extinctions Good for Evolution ---

This last one I hope you will find particularly fascinating since it speaks to a subject you brought up, namely are viruses alive? It not only speaks to that question but demonstrates just how blurry that line is becoming as we learn ever more about our fascinating world and what Life is and how it is different from the so-called non-living. It is quite possible that we are still a conceited species that still assumes we are "The Crown of Creation" when the jury is far from in on that one.

--- Are Viruses Alive? ---

I hope you thoroughly enjoy having your not inconsiderable mind tickled.

Last edited by enorbet; 04-16-2018 at 04:17 PM.
 
Old 04-16-2018, 04:39 PM   #8119
ChuangTzu
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2015
Location: Where ever needed
Distribution: Slackware/Salix, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,032

Rep: Reputation: 799Reputation: 799Reputation: 799Reputation: 799Reputation: 799Reputation: 799Reputation: 799
nice post from both of you, now this is how "debates" should be conducted.

I would like to add that we should not reduce the possible answers to unlimited questions just to a "western" mindset/philosophy/science and also not to just a "modern" viewpoint. Regarding enorbets last link/question for example, Taoists have long stated that there are 4 Kingdoms/categories of life on this planet (others could have more, and obviously different categories all together), and they are:
  • Kingdom of Minerals (includes all mineral formations from the tiniest grain of sand to the largest planet and galaxy in the universe, category has life cycles generation-maturation-degeneration)
  • Kingdom of Vegetation (includes viruses and bacteria, this category has physical forms and physical senses)
  • Kingdom of Animals (in addition to physical bodies with physical senses, mental bodies, first expressions of thought, will and emotion, stuck living within timetables since they lack a spiritual body)
  • Kingdom of Humankind (in addition to physical bodies and mental bodies they also have spiritual bodies)

The purpose of all life is to live and in order to live, life will evolve. The kingdoms of Minerals and Vegetation are both alive just on different frequencies/wavelengths then the kingdoms of Animals and Humans. So yes viruses and bacteria are alive. Under a microscope some look like elephants others reproduce in a manner uncannily similar to humans even with undulations and "rhythmic movements".

These Kingdoms were observed over 5,000 years ago by the Taoists who were/are scientists/philosophers/physicians etc...
 
Old 04-16-2018, 08:23 PM   #8120
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170Reputation: 3170
Thank you for your additional observations and insights, Enorbet. One thing that can certainly be said about this life is that it is a bottomless well of genuine mysteries. May we never stop exploring.

But also and I now purposely include religion in this let us also be careful not to condemn, judge, or shut-off any "form of exploration or consideration." Science is an important one, but not the only one. Philosophy is another. Religion in all its many forms is a third. Our lives are made rich, and maybe, our eyes and minds are kept open, when we embrace all of these aspects of our collective humanity. They have each served us well.
 
Old 04-17-2018, 03:36 PM   #8121
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,957

Rep: Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855
Though you may find this hard to believe, Sundial, I actually support your post above and also include spirituality in a broad definition of that term as a valid form of exploration and understanding. At the very least it provides many of the Big Kahuna Questions, to borrow your moniker of the field. I know there is more going on than we can explain or even interpret, and that Logic is only one tool of many. I am a trained scientist but I am also a trained and experienced artist and musician. What may seem odd, given my allegiance to evidence and critical Logic, is that the Art and Music I love most does not conform to Logic. In Music I most revere Improvisation and rebel against the strict rules of Western Classical Music.

I know from both study and experience that "The Sheet Music" is not "The Song". It is only a skeleton of the fundamentals that can be accurately communicated between people but at the cost of how it sounds and feels, and subject to each "musician's" interpretation. In fact, the "sheet music" and long term reliance on it can inhibit if not prevent many musicians from the art of improv, of being able to create and express in the moment what is only hinted at on the page. That said, the only way I know of for a song/composition to have any unique identity, to even deserve a song title, is if key elements don't drift too far away from those fundamentals or it becomes a new, or at least different, song.

This is the juggling act we are all engaged in here on this caterwauling thread. In many ways it is the philosophical equivalent of Unfinished Symphonies. The debates will likely go on for as long as sentient beings exist. Hopefully we all consult The Sheet Music from time to time.
 
Old 04-18-2018, 10:11 AM   #8122
jamison20000e
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: ...uncanny valley... infinity\1975; (randomly born:) Milwaukee, WI, US( + travel,) Earth( I wish,) END BORDER$!◣◢┌∩┐ Fe26-E,e...
Distribution: any GPL that works well on my cheapest; has been KDE or CLI but open... http://goo.gl/NqgqJx &c ;-)
Posts: 3,708
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1163Reputation: 1163Reputation: 1163Reputation: 1163Reputation: 1163Reputation: 1163Reputation: 1163Reputation: 1163Reputation: 1163
There's no debate here, only evolving imaginations and reality).(

Once again I'm out!
 
Old 05-08-2018, 11:51 AM   #8123
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 303

Rep: Reputation: 250Reputation: 250Reputation: 250
@enorbet: There is no debate! There is only truth! We just don't know it yet @ 100% - question for debate should be WHY we do not know. Some hide or we forgot over time or because of some past event? And BOTH sides have to provide evidence for either existance or non existance claims of God. Until then we all can and will have opinions about origins whether they are about Evolution Aliens or God(s) and they ARE valid. Point of View until truth details be confirmed 100% not 90%(for example) is normal.

However those who study stuff around them including body will clearly see complex yet simple clues from creation..Ancient Astronaut theory supports article about religion. And other already mentioned stuff..debating is pointless here cause only few actually seek truth through chat. Most just want to argue. Even if opposition in debate brings valid points.

Last edited by Arcane; 05-08-2018 at 11:53 AM. Reason: typo
 
Old 05-08-2018, 03:48 PM   #8124
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,957

Rep: Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855
On one level, Arcane, of course there is a debate. 542 pages of this thread is proof of that. What isn't a debate is the existence of any Supreme Being, at least among or including most scientists since there not only is no evidence, it is extremely likely there CAN BE no evidence from outside our Universe considering a Creator by definition exists outside of our Universe. It must be by nature an article of Faith since evidence is apparently impossible.

I imagine that rubs you wrongly since you appear to want Absolutes - "confirmed 100% not 90%" - which is doubtful can even exist for human understanding on complex, open-ended issues. I will bet all day long at 9 to 1 odds while apparently you think you require certainty all the while you seem to believe in things nowhere near 50% let alone 90%. So I don't know where you really stand.

I also don't get what connection you see between Creation, Ancient Astronauts, and the article you linked nor any evidence in either at any percentage level. More to the point I don't get at all why you suppose a question even exists as to why we don't know everything. Are you saying you expect a priori knowledge?

Regarding the nature of Knowledge and the Scientific Method as a means to gaining knowledge perhaps you would enjoy this to tickle your brain

--- The Relativity of Wrong ---
 
Old 05-26-2018, 01:09 PM   #8125
Arcane
Member
 
Registered: May 2006
Location: Latvia, Europe
Distribution: random
Posts: 303

Rep: Reputation: 250Reputation: 250Reputation: 250
Kinda pointless to argue with close-minded..but for those who are open-minded this article can be interesting:
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysic...is-dark-energy
At least even A.Einstein understood that science is not complete(therefore room for existance of "paranormal" or previously thought "extra science" can exist afterall and room for corrections aswell)..anyway this article is about theory of dual matter - first is visible(we all know this one..interacting with it each day) and second invisible(not yet studied|documented). Also about some other energy which is not matter but something else. Again - analogy for example: Imagine "holy book" with title 'Science', we use it and learn from it but it is clear that that book is not yet finished - over time it gets more info in it, so it already self-dissprooves these "claims" about topics this book not have page of info yet(religion details); and even if it would be finished - it is result of observations through our limited amount of senses, some day some device can be discovered(like telescope before and other tools that remind us that our 5 senses are not final deciders what exist(s) and what not) that allow us to 'tap' into more unknown. Conclusion: as long as there will be Unknown none can claim stuff they do not understand yet regardless of age - experience comes from experiencing stuff not simply counting birthdays..just more 2 cents as they say.
 
Old 05-27-2018, 11:29 AM   #8126
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,957

Rep: Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855
There can be no doubt that the discovery of the phenomena referred to as Dark Matter and Dark Energy are extremely humbling, sort of like thinking your near the finish line only to discover the line is 10 times further away than you realized and with by no means a nicely cultivated path to get there. When we combine that with the extreme differences between the Macro world and the Micro world, the realm of what we can experience directly and Quantum Mechanics, we can see why Unified Field Theory (Theory of Everything) has been, and likely will for many generations, been so elusive.

However we can still track the accumulation and refinement of knowledge and there can also be no doubt that this has been a logarithmic growth with the further back in time we go, the less likely we get close to Truth. As long as Mankind continues exploring, discovering mew things and asking new questions, gathering new evidence this trend will continue and tomorrow we will know more than we know today.

Furthermore it can be seen how quickly and widespread many leap on any sort of perceived opening for Deus es Machina as almost all bad science fiction uses the word "Quantum" as a device to lend credibility to the most ridiculous stuff they need for a plot twist. Science works. Mysticism is at it's very best, just speculative guesswork, and at it's worst, complete fabrication. It is wise to avoid illusory traps.
 
Old 05-27-2018, 11:30 AM   #8127
DavidMcCann
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: CentOS, Xubuntu
Posts: 5,089

Rep: Reputation: 1696Reputation: 1696Reputation: 1696Reputation: 1696Reputation: 1696Reputation: 1696Reputation: 1696Reputation: 1696Reputation: 1696Reputation: 1696Reputation: 1696
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet View Post
What isn't a debate is the existence of any Supreme Being, at least among or including most scientists since there not only is no evidence, it is extremely likely there CAN BE no evidence from outside our Universe considering a Creator by definition exists outside of our Universe. It must be by nature an article of Faith since evidence is apparently impossible.
Arguments for creation are normally based on philosophical arguments: no-one seems to have experienced a god who claimed to have created the universe. Incidentally, why would it have to be one "supreme being" cars are designed by teams, so why not universes?

The opinions of scientists are of no great interest to me, except of course within their areas of expertise. Outside it we had cases like Fred Hoyle on evolution or Carl Sagan on psychology ("embarrassingly naive" according to the neurologist Rastak).

Thus Stephen Hawking said that the Big Bang "explained everything". The problem is that the argument for the Big Bang relies on extrapolating back from current events to previous ones: every physical event depends on previous ones. But the Big Bang is a physical event, so it too needs explanation. To say that it "just happened" is to shoot yourself in the foot: once you admit events that happen for no reason at all, you can't keep them out. Like Hawking, I think the current universe started with the Big Bang; unlike him. I realise that there can be no evidence that current expansion didn't start in 1732! There's no obligation to believe that the Big Bang was the result of an act of creation, of course. But the alternative is surely to declare the universe to be ultimately inexplicable, which is hardly consonant with the goals of science or, more importantly, with our basic instincts.
 
Old 05-27-2018, 11:50 AM   #8128
ntubski
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,383

Rep: Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540Reputation: 1540
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
there can be no evidence that current expansion didn't start in 1732!
Did you mean 1732 to stand in for <arbitrary time>, or are you referring to something specific in that year?

Quote:
There's no obligation to believe that the Big Bang was the result of an act of creation, of course. But the alternative is surely to declare the universe to be ultimately inexplicable, which is hardly consonant with the goals of science or, more importantly, with our basic instincts.
IMO, both of those alternatives declare the universe to be ultimately inexpliclable.
 
Old 05-28-2018, 01:17 AM   #8129
enorbet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Virginia
Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up
Posts: 1,957

Rep: Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855Reputation: 1855
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
Arguments for creation are normally based on philosophical arguments: no-one seems to have experienced a god who claimed to have created the universe. Incidentally, why would it have to be one "supreme being" cars are designed by teams, so why not universes?
... A decidedly anthropomorphic POV but certainly fun and a bit of the ol' reductio ad absurdum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
The opinions of scientists are of no great interest to me, except of course within their areas of expertise. Outside it we had cases like Fred Hoyle on evolution or Carl Sagan on psychology ("embarrassingly naive" according to the neurologist Rastak).
Very important point! These events give us a look into just how "embarrassingly naive" conclusions can be when even the brightest of us draw conclusions from minimal or faulty evidence, thus reinforcing that "scientists" are still indeed fallible but lending efficacy and authority to The Scientific Method.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
Thus Stephen Hawking said that the Big Bang "explained everything". The problem is that the argument for the Big Bang relies on extrapolating back from current events to previous ones: every physical event depends on previous ones. But the Big Bang is a physical event, so it too needs explanation. To say that it "just happened" is to shoot yourself in the foot: once you admit events that happen for no reason at all, you can't keep them out. Like Hawking, I think the current universe started with the Big Bang; unlike him. I realise that there can be no evidence that current expansion didn't start in 1732! There's no obligation to believe that the Big Bang was the result of an act of creation, of course. But the alternative is surely to declare the universe to be ultimately inexplicable, which is hardly consonant with the goals of science or, more importantly, with our basic instincts.
Actually we know quite a lot about how things were on the Grand Scale in 1732 and a lot further back by billions of years. Because we are looking back in time when we look out we see and measure things how they were and that is about to get a whole lot further and more complete with the fairly imminent launching of the James Webb Space Telescope, the successor to Hubble with many times it's power as well as ability to "see" way into the infrared spectrum which is where what was visible light back then has stretched to now from the billions of years of travel.

Through the process of Falsification, basically actively trying to shoot theories full of holes to see "what pans out" Big Bang is on rather solid ground as it has resisted such attempts for ~100 years of ever increasing technology and dedication to cataloguing such information. Some people complain about how much of any country's budget is spent on pure research but that carries with it a flip side, that such expenditure is part of the logarithmic increase in data gathered, parsed, grasped and understood in those last 100 years. Things that have withstood such an onslaught are rather dependable, reasonably safe bets.

The whole argument about whether or not the Universe is fundamentally inexplicable is the Ultimate Foot Shooting. I have been alive for roughly 26,300 days and on each of those days the sun made it's path across our skies and I didn't float off into space. Once we confirmed the Earth revolves around the Sun giving explanation of both those phenomena it is extremely safe to bet that such events happened just like that during the Roman Empire, hundreds of thousands of years of Hunter-Gatherers, right back through The Jurassic and further through PreCambrain SuperEon all the way to the first days of planet Earth roughly 4,000,000,000 years ago. Looking out into space at older solar systems we see that such forces have been at work ever since there was baryonic matter over 13,000,000,000 years ago. The clarion point is that extrapolation is far more than just mathematically sound.

It may be possible that some fundamental changes have occurred in the very deep past and we have some clues to that with how and when the four fundamental forces separated or came into being. David, I imagine you already know these basics but for anyone that doesn't have a firm grasp on these important forces and their steps in the Evolution of Our Universe and the powerful evidence they provide for ongoing understanding that AT THE VERY LEAST there is consistency at the scales of Classical Physics and that is knowable and explicable. Things get altogether fuzzier on Quantum scales but even given our lack of intuition in events on those scales Quantum Mechanics has a track record of THE MOST SUCCESSFUL set of predictions in the history of Man's Knowledge.

Here is a very well-explained video of these fundamental forces that have sculpted Everything and stand as a monument to Human Understanding of the World around us.
https://tinyurl.com/mmuksue

To posit that "the universe is inexplicable" is so absurd that if that were so we should all just sit around and wait to die or just kill ourselves because nothing makes any sense. It's implications to "Faith and Religion" would be even more catastrophic since that implies any Supreme Being(s) are Tricksters, the very definition of Evil characterized as Satanic in some.
 
Old 06-25-2018, 05:48 AM   #8130
jsbjsb001
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2009
Location: Earth? I would say I hope so but I'm not so sure about that... I could just be a figment of your imagination too.
Distribution: CentOS at the time of this writing, but some others over the years too...
Posts: 1,972

Rep: Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894Reputation: 894
LQ's lost faith!!

Just say'n.

(I have no opinion about anything said above - but it is nice to get some religion now and again.)
 
  


Reply

Tags
bible, censorship, christ, christian, determinism, education, faith, free will, god, human stupidity, humor, islam, jesus, magic roundabout, mythology, nihilism, peace, pointless, polytheism, poser, quran, religion, virtue, war, zealot


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Religion (no linux in this thread, sorry) Calum General 16 07-11-2016 01:48 PM
The touchpad "tapping" questions answers and solutions mega-thread tommytomthms5 Linux - Laptop and Netbook 4 10-30-2007 06:01 PM
What is your religion? jspenguin General 9 04-25-2004 01:28 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:26 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration