Hi Andrie, In my opinion, the bible is a book. It may be useful to some, but I have not taken the time to read it. Being a book, this would argue that you could get your credo from it (as you state below). Perhaps you believe some books more than others, that is your choice. But what is it that is making that choice? Are you divinely inspired to know that some are real and others not? If you are agnostic then how can you believe in things that you have not experienced such as black hole evaporation? Sounds like you have a lot of faith to me.
Now, randomness. A while back there was much discussion about Chance. Some chose to make Chance their god. Chanced does follow definite rules as defined by statistics, so it is something to have faith in. If by randomness you mean there are no rules that we can ascribe, this would mean that everything we see is randomness. This may be a kind of a misuse of the word. If you believe that order arises from chaos, then where exactly do you differentiate the two? And, if you do not want to talk religion, then perhaps you should take a close look at science. How is it not a religion? Some questions right back at you. Cheers, Mark On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:34 AM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <[email protected]>wrote: > Okay, 1 straight question arises, You do not have to answer it, i will not > hold it against you. > > Is the bible the highest pattern of value?(in your expirience)-is it a > pattern of value? > > If it is , for you, i will still have respect for you,but we will not > discuss religion itself, i will always remain my position as > agnoticus. > > Pff, Krimels kreed, we use the word credo, i will never make it my > credo,"shit happens" or "chaos rules", i tend to derive my credo's from > reality itself.From the books , the works, science, art. > > The word randomness gaught my attention, i think its better to stay > carefull > with words like that, before you know it, > we will be using words as notingness,wholeness, randomness,ending up in > sillyness, like with Ham's homebrew-crap. > Hamptiness?...djeezz.Loch ness? valueless? > > Can you pay attention to the first question? > greetz, Adrie > > > > 2010/10/11 John Carl <[email protected]> > > > Well fine, Adrie. If you insist... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hawking, quote on fine tuning,.. > > > > > > Along with Thomas Hertog at CERN, in 2006 Hawking proposed a theory of > > > "top-down cosmology," which says that the universe had no unique > initial > > > state, and therefore it is inappropriate for physicists to attempt to > > > formulate a theory that predicts the universe's current configuration > > from > > > one particular initial state.[20] > > > > > > > > John: Ok, very interesting, yes. My problem? The same I have always > with > > authoritative expertise. I'm sure the man himself would be thoughtful > and > > careful in his formulation, offering his theories as just those - > theories. > > But so often the expert's theories became the body politic's dogma. > > Hawking's ideas are interesting in contributing to a certain dialogue. > > They > > are not interesting when they bring the dialogue to a close. Like there > > is > > no philosophy anymore because it's all been figured out by the experts > who > > are most quoted on tv, and we have no need for it. Thanks. We don't > need > > to think, all we need to do is believe what they say on the discover > > history > > channel. Or in my ma's case, 3abn - the adventist broadcasting network. > > Lord save us. > > > > > > > > > [[[[ Top-down cosmology posits that in > > > some sense, the present "selects" the past from a superposition of many > > > possible histories. > > > > > > Which makes no difference at all, since all it tells us is what we > already > > know - this is the universe we're stuck with. What possible pragmatic > > reality can "unrealized choices" offer? What possible difference can > such > > speculations make to me? A man living in the realizable cosmos and > asking > > simple questions? Lemme know about this one I'm in. Unrealized > > possibilites sounds like angels and pins to my ears. > > > > I don't care about possible histories. I want to know about real ones. > I > > want the real story, not the blind alleys. > > > > > > In doing so, the theory suggests a possible resolution > > > of the fine-tuning question: It is inevitable that we find our > universe's > > > present physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only > those > > > past histories that led to the present conditions. ]]]]]]In this way, > > > > > > > > > I've heard tautologies before. I know what the solipsistic cosmos looks > > like. I've had it described to me many times. I ain't buyin'. Here's > > why. It's facile. Reality is the way it is because it just is... I > admit > > it has a certain attraction to it, in its kindergarten way. But > > personally, > > I like my metaphysical formulation with just a bit more meat. For of > > course, one could reason that in a cosmos of infinite choice, and this > (who > > we are) obvious outcome, then we only need postulate infinity going > > backwards, with just the slightest chance (probability rules!) and that > > postulated probability becomes well nigh inevitable. I've heard it > before. > > I remember Krimel's Kreed. I know what the metaphysics of arising > > randomness gets you. For some people it's like a security blanket, > > protecting their tender little psyche from the cold. For others, a > > straitjacket, a prison, a downward spiraling hell of no return. > > > > shivers. > > > > I'm for sunnier climes, me. Give Steven H. my regards. > > > > > > > > > > > top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find > > > ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking > an > > > ensemble of multiple universes. > > > > > > > > > > I'm still quite fond of the biocentrism cosmology, which ties many of > these > > loose ends together and makes sense in a practical and empirically sound > > way > > - that deep down, matter is tied to life - the whole universe is in fact, > > based upon a life principle or directional force. Space and time are > > animal > > constructs - meaningful in narrative relations. Value really is the > > whole > > story. > > > > > > > > > > the fine-tuning question, Answer by Hawking stephen. > > > TOTAL HARMONY WITH THE ANTROPIC PRINCIPLE, (not entropic) > > > > > > ISOLATED BETWEEN HOOKS > > > > > > > > > > > > Adrie, one has no obligation to accept it , but if you think of it , > the > > > briljance in the line is just incredible. > > > and i have to give him credit for his black hole evaporation work. > > > > > > Greetz, Adrie > > > > > > > > > Well, I've been wheeling my ma around. I admire him for his snazzy > chair. > > And I'm glad he agrees with the total harmony with the anthropic > principle. > > I also agree completely. I just hope they keep the story straight, is > all. > > > > > > John > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > > > > > > -- > parser > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
