Science doesn't fascinate me in the way some literature and people can generally - I suspect the 'enthusiasm' of the popularisation of the subjects. I concur on the predicament element rigs - insightive. It seems a mistake to me to try and place god in some scientific- dimensional space (though I miss Pat) and I wonder instead whether the god-positions people hack out are as baseless as, say, phlogiston - we need some new thinking.
Science and critical history have demonstrated much religious text is fable. We repeatedly see that image management hides much that is foul under 'preaching' - here our current examples would be Jimmy Saville, Baby P, priestly paedophiles and Hillsborough (scouting in the US etc.) - but I'd say we may be on the brink of realising economics is equally vile. I can imagine spending a few weeks with a group living human- constrained lives in a collective of the future. A woman kisses me goodbye. She will not see me again because I'm off to a near-space terminal built off Alpha Proxima. From there I'm relativity travelling to the edge of this universe to undertake genetic transformation beyond the gene-splicing that has allowed me to travel in space. I see in 16 colours thanks to a shrimp and can enter cryostasis thanks to genes from Arctic fish. I interface with machines and their learning directly. I can no longer replicate as a human - etc. Now I'm off to meet and form a collective with beings who perceive much of the world we can only postulate. In traditional science fiction these 'dark beings' would be bastards intent on taking over the human world. What I don't see is any focus on a future in which the rather soppy human-emotional ties are broken - a future in which ... One might ask how the creature I have become would get his jollies. One can go the other way in history and ask what religion has actually done. We are not inventive enough about god. On 21 Oct, 14:50, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > And some feel science is boring unless it can be translated into > everyday life in meaningful ways. > > On Oct 20, 3:50 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > We travel at 60k plus miles an hour in the solar system and 500K > > through the galaxy in our system. I tend to believe we can measure > > this kind of thing and that we are always left with questions like > > Allan's about before after and beyond. Hitch-hikers' Guide probably > > gets to the irony. Quite a few of us discount priests and text- > > authority without giving up on spirit. Spinoza remains the clearest > > example. > > > Creation stories end up in infinite regress - scientific and otherwise > > - and beg the question of 'what came before that' by positing a > > fiction of something that needs no creator or origin. I don't believe > > god whipped up the Grand Canyon, but in the limits of our thinking > > something whipped up something that led to the evolution of our planet > > etc. I tend to think science rather than literature may lead to a > > different way of seeing this and surviving until this is possible. > > Literature is generally bland and lacks depth - though there are great > > moments. I suspect one of the key issues is raised by Gabby a lot of > > the time - we need to replace current authority and know the irony is > > such attempts just produce the same old business as usual (WB Yeates > > was good on this). > > > The stuff on thermodynamics above is very similar in method to > > Einstein and what we might now term Wittgensteinian deconstruction - > > trying to find the common elements and mistakes in various competing > > arguments and readdress the apparent conflict. Molly has some words > > on this too. > > > On 20 Oct, 20:37, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > google books had a copy up online, it may still be there. Used book > > > outlets like Alibris will allow you to put in the book you are searching > > > for and notify you when a copy becomes available for sale by a store that > > > uses their service. Other than that, you may find some good articles > > > about > > > it with excerpts online. for Einstein fans, it is a favorite. > > > > On Saturday, October 20, 2012 10:14:03 AM UTC-4, Allan Heretic wrote: > > > > > how does a person get a hold of the original text..?? > > > > Allan > > > > > On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Molly <[email protected] > > > > <javascript:>>wrote: > > > > >> The Einstein "The World As I See It," originally began as his > > > >> ponderance > > > >> of something greater than science, and acknowledgement of spirit in > > > >> action. > > > >> The original edition is the best, as his editors put together texts > > > >> with > > > >> lectures for him under the same name, and those books have an entirely > > > >> different flavor. > > > > >> From my view, "knowing" is not the end of it, but the beginning. > > > > >> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 8:09:19 AM UTC-4, gabbydott wrote: > > > > >>> Honestly, Vam, I don't think that it was Einstein's lack of knowledge > > > >>> that made him pose such a daft (in the sense of limited) question. I > > > >>> read > > > >>> this as a description of the state of occidental science at his time > > > >>> - the > > > >>> conflict between the ontological and the constructivist explanatory > > > >>> models > > > >>> of the nature of knowledge. > > > > >>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>> You spoke of Einstein, about his ” only ” interest being whether > > > >>>> God<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God> had > > > >>>> any choice in manifesting the universe and this observed creation. > > > > >>>> My own suggestion is that if we do not know enough we will always > > > >>>> think > > > >>>> along those lines. > > > > >>>> To the uninitiate, the desktops of today would seem to be thinking > > > >>>> entities ... > > > > >>>> *So, do we know enough ?* > > > > >>>> <https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-EBJSz8MhWQU/UIJGzwpvR3I/AAAAAAAAB0...> > > > > >>>> On Saturday, October 20, 2012 6:36:45 AM UTC+5:30, rigsy03 wrote: > > > > >>>>> I took a course on the Snow-Leavis(1959-1962) controversy in the > > > >>>>> mid-'70's. Perhaps we should then conclude scientists do not > > > >>>>> understand humanism? Other works involved included various essays > > > >>>>> and > > > >>>>> books by Aldous Huxley ("Literature and Science") and Bronowski > > > >>>>> ("Science and Human Values"). Not sure that "incomprehension and > > > >>>>> dislike"(Snow) between the two groups has changed at all when > > > >>>>> considering the gap between rich and poor nations, smart weapons, > > > >>>>> etc. > > > >>>>> as science and militarism promote the self-interest of various > > > >>>>> nations/ > > > >>>>> political theories and practices. Should we quibble that Nazi > > > >>>>> scientists propelled the USA moon landing? At least the moon > > > >>>>> survived. > > > > >>>>> On Oct 19, 1:37 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>> > The below is rather long, but physics is returning to some of the > > > >>>>> > ideas of James Maxwell. My dog is named after him. Years ago, we > > > >>>>> > were told their were two cultures ( CP Snow) - one knew the 2nd > > > >>>>> > law > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>> > thermodynamics and the other did not (literary types). The 2nd > > > >>>>> > law > > > >>>>> > involved was a straw man. The following, as Max needs his walk, > > > >>>>> > is > > > >>>>> > paraphrased from last week's New Scientist. > > > > >>>>> > A few decades after Carnot, the German physicist Rudolph Clausius > > > >>>>> > explained such phenomena in terms of a quantity characterising > > > >>>>> > disorder that he called entropy. In this picture, the universe > > > >>>>> > works > > > >>>>> > on the back of processes that increase entropy - for example > > > >>>>> > dissipating heat from places where it is concentrated, and > > > >>>>> > therefore > > > >>>>> > more ordered, to cooler areas, where it is not. That predicts a > > > >>>>> grim > > > >>>>> > fate for the universe itself. Once all heat is maximally > > > >>>>> > dissipated, > > > >>>>> > no useful process can happen in it any more: it dies a "heat > > > >>>>> > death". > > > >>>>> A > > > >>>>> > perplexing question is raised at the other end of cosmic history, > > > >>>>> too. > > > >>>>> > If nature always favours states of high entropy, how and why did > > > >>>>> > the > > > >>>>> > universe start in a state that seems to have been of comparatively > > > >>>>> low > > > >>>>> > entropy? At present we have no answer, and there is an intriguing > > > >>>>> > alternative view. > > > > >>>>> > Perhaps because of such undesirable consequences, the legitimacy > > > >>>>> > of > > > >>>>> > the second law was for a long time questioned. The charge was > > > >>>>> > formulated with the most striking clarity by the Scottish > > > >>>>> > physicist > > > >>>>> > James Clerk Maxwell in 1867. He was satisfied that inanimate > > > >>>>> > matter > > > >>>>> > presented no difficulty for the second law. In an isolated system, > > > >>>>> > heat always passes from the hotter to the cooler, and a neat clump > > > >>>>> of > > > >>>>> > dye molecules readily dissolves in water and disperses randomly, > > > >>>>> never > > > >>>>> > the other way round. Disorder as embodied by entropy does always > > > >>>>> > increase. Maxwell's problem was with life. Living things have > > > >>>>> > "intentionality": they deliberately do things to other things to > > > >>>>> make > > > >>>>> > life easier for themselves. Conceivably, they might try to reduce > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> > entropy of their surroundings and thereby violate the second law. > > > >>>>> > Such a possibility is highly disturbing to physicists. Either > > > >>>>> > something is a universal law or it is merely a cover for something > > > >>>>> > deeper. Yet it was only in the late 1970s that Maxwell's entropy- > > > >>>>> > fiddling "demon" was laid to rest. Its slayer was the US physicist > > > >>>>> > Charles Bennett, who built on work by his colleague at IBM, Rolf > > > >>>>> > Landauer, using the theory of information developed a few decades > > > >>>>> > earlier by Claude Shannon. An intelligent being can certainly > > > >>>>> > rearrange things to lower the entropy of its environment. But to > > > >>>>> > do > > > >>>>> > this, it must first fill up its memory, gaining information as to > > > >>>>> how > > > >>>>> > things are arranged in the first place. > > > > >>>>> > This acquired information must be encoded somewhere, presumably in > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> > demon's memory. When this memory is finally full, or the being > > > >>>>> > dies > > > >>>>> or > > > >>>>> > otherwise expires, it must be reset. Dumping all this stored, > > > >>>>> ordered > > > >>>>> > information back into the environment increases entropy - and this > > > >>>>> > entropy increase, Bennett showed, will ultimately always be at > > > >>>>> > least > > > >>>>> > as large as the entropy reduction the demon originally achieved. > > > >>>>> Thus > > > >>>>> > the status of the second law was assured, albeit anchored in a > > > >>>>> mantra > > > >>>>> > of Landauer's that would have been unintelligible to the > > > >>>>> 19th-century > > > >>>>> > progenitors of thermodynamics: that "information is physical". > > > >>>>> > James Joule's 19th century experiments with beer can be used to > > > >>>>> > illustrate this idea. The English brewer, whose name lives on in > > > >>>>> > the > > > >>>>> > standard unit of energy, sealed beer in a thermally isolated tub > > > >>>>> > containing a paddle wheel that was connected to weights falling > > > >>>>> under > > > >>>>> > gravity outside. The wheel's rotation warmed the beer, increasing > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> > disorder of its molecules and therefore its entropy. But hard as > > > >>>>> > we > > > >>>>> > might try, we simply cannot use Joule's set-up to decrease the > > > >>>>> beer's > > > >>>>> > temperature, even by a fraction of a millikelvin. Cooler beer is, > > > >>>>> > in > > > >>>>> > this instance, a state regrettably beyond the reach of physics. > > > > >>>>> > The question is whether we can express the whole of physics simply > > > >>>>> by > > > >>>>> > enumerating possible and impossible processes in a given > > > >>>>> > situation. > > > >>>>> > This is very different from how physics is usually phrased, in > > > >>>>> > both > > ... > > read more » --
