[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
Duveyoung: > I'll put you above Willy in that you > are a more clever troll, but you're a > troll nonetheless in that you hit and > run... > Edg, you need to just keep your pie hole shut about Turq. Your accusations about Turq and his private sex life is trollish - it's none of your business what he does with his spare time. You are not even making any sense anymore.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason wrote: > > Barry, you do have a certain pig-headedness, > I've noticed that. > > You are an extremely Cynical person, a serial > Critic who has to posit a Critique for anything > you come across. > > Have you considered that you are a dogmatic > rebel who lashes out at everything and a fanatical > anarchist. > > You are the most incorrigible person I've seen > on the Net And a "Buddhist" who is desperate to denounce the only Master he ever knew on a daily basis here on FFL. Every day, 7 days a week ! Go figure !
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
Barry, you do have a certain pig-headedness, I've noticed that. You are an extremely Cynical person, a serial Critic who has to posit a Critique for anything you come across. Have you considered that you are a dogmatic rebel who lashes out at everything and a fanatical anarchist. You are the most incorrigible person I've seen on the Net --- On Sun, 6/13/10, TurquoiseB wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science? Date: Sunday, June 13, 2010, 8:32 AM figured you needed to get that off your chest. :-) Both you and Judy are very similar, in that you seem to believe that hurling bad writing at someone you hate is the worst thing you can do to them, and causes them to feel some kind of pain. I can't speak for others, but in me it merely causes me to feel pity for the person who considered it writing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > You are the worst person at Fairfield life -- if you left, there'd be a big > sigh of relief here, and minds might again have the courage to try to engage > others here with a true spontaneity. Your sniping obliterates any positivity > you bring to this place with your snapshots of Europe etc. BRAVO !
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > There, I've done my good deed for Sunday and maybe saved > Judy some toil. I figured you needed to get that off your chest. :-) Both you and Judy are very similar, in that you seem to believe that hurling bad writing at someone you hate is the worst thing you can do to them, and causes them to feel some kind of pain. I can't speak for others, but in me it merely causes me to feel pity for the person who considered it writing.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
Barry, You're not worth the effort to mount the kind of onslaught it would take to break through your denial, but for funzies, I'll toss out a thousand or so words right now -- my pleasure -- but not a purposed and aimed agenda wrapped pleasure with any chance of piercing your cast iron veils. Nor have you actually given any permission to do so despite the "request." You've got all shields on red alert all the time -- and it feels like you're a photobomber in every social situation you enterunwelcome and making faces in the background of life. I think just about everyone is saying, inwardly, "" when you're around. I'll put you above Willy in that you are a more clever troll, but you're a troll nonetheless in that you hit and run. I tried and tried in my early days here to like you, because you have a way with words and love writing, but every time I challenged you, you IMMEDIATELY resorted to smarm and putdowns and in general emitting a vibe that would get your face punched in real life. I gave you several chances to be a regular person, but you always have treated me with an unfounded derision. I finally had to see my own naiveté about people on the Internet and that you are simply a rotton fucking person to invite to any gathering. "Unfounded" in that you will not engage ANYONE here with a true "let's get at the truth together" intent. If I've been wrong about this or that, and I'm human, so yeah I have been wrong, but when I have been you've been as cruel as Willy, stupid as Sal, and flat out chicken shit cowardly when it comes to you having to step up and actually engage others with sober analysis. I have seen you be confronted by DOZENS of others here and you have treated them as you have me, so I finally got it that it wasn't personal and that I was only witnessing another broken mind thrashing around in a blinding pain and striking even those who would approach you with succor of some sort for the malady. I tried my best to suck it up, ignore your addiction to "gotcha," and give you another chance.because Marek and Curtis, the saints, do so. I've done this MANY times -- even recently I tossed you a bone by telling Rick I agreed with you about pulling the Ravi videos, but though I have done this sort of white flag waving many times, you simply keep growling like a dog with a bone who cannot abide any petting. In short, you're mean and all it takes for you to justify an acid remark -- even on a newbie -- is that you have had your morning coffee. You brag about having relationships with young women that on the up and up, but yet you admit to slavering and ogling and leering with your one phrase "hit it." There's you in a nutshell -- you'd hit it if conditions allowed. Your morality towards women is conditional instead of absolute, and you simply yell out some "fuck you" and run if anyone challenges you about it. I think anyone here could analyze you enough to deconstruct your ex-pat lifestyle as "but of course that's what that kind of person would do." You've run from anything that could possibly ask you to have a heart and really deal with how you impact others. The only way to improve your general level of happiness would be to give you a taser and let you use it with a Double-O-Seven disregard for others. As for my opinions about God, aliens, et al, you're not really listening, so shame on me if I discuss these things with you with any expectations of civility. I've posted many times about these topics and you have yet to come at me with my own quotes and a red pencil and a sincere inquiry. And everything you've done to me -- you've done to everyone here with but few exceptions. You come off as a greasy mitted pizza delivery guy dressed in Italy's colors trying to buddy up and rudely shaking the gloved hand of someone at the monochromatic Ascot Opening Race scene in My Fair Lady. Of course, I can only say these things because I have my own dark side which admittedly has some resonant congruity with your own -- for who has not been psychically pounded into a hamburger faced pug by life like Sly at the end of Rocky, but it's on a leash, and I am pained when it slips its collar, but you don't even know how to say, "I'm sorry," when your pitbull has been found hunting among mere kittens. You are the worst person at Fairfield life -- if you left, there'd be a big sigh of relief here, and minds might again have the courage to try to engage others here with a true spontaneity. Your sniping obliterates any positivity you bring to this place with your snapshots of Europe etc. There, I've done my good deed for Sunday and maybe saved Judy some toil.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > A new depth in the tawdry department. > > I never accused you of actually drugging young women or > raping them thereafter -- only that you have the personality > to do so if, ahem, push comes to shove. You have several times now accused me of wanting to drug young women, specifying a drug that I have never heard of, but with which you are obviously familiar. I'd say that the person who has pondered drugging young women -- enough to have a "drug of choice" with which to do it -- is not me, but you. I had a marvelous conversation last night with a young woman. She's the daughter of a friend, and excited about going away to college for the first time soon. We talked Sociology, because that's what she is planning to study. She emerged from the experience undrugged and unleered at. I am not convinced this would have happened if you had been the person talking to her. Let's face it, dude...the person with the fixation about "predation" here is YOU. And it's so enduring and has such a hold on you that I don't think I'm the only person here who suspects that the mechanics of the situation are that you are projecting onto me the things you dream about doing, but don't have the stones to do except in your wet dreams. I wouldn't know what drug to use to drug a woman and take advantage of her. You do. Speaks volumes. But the larger issue is the twif-nonsense of assum- ing that just because little green men can travel across the stars they've got *their* needs under control. I don't think you can come up with a rationale for that, and so I'm challenging you to do so. C'mon Mister "He won't deal with my questions"...walk your own talk. Or are you All Talk, All The Time? While you're at it, why don't you take up the gauntlet I threw down for Buck, and which he passed on. You seem to have an abiding dislike for me, and continue to call me names and insinuate things about me that you have no way of knowing, and that are so far off the mark that I can only chuckle when reading them. Don't stop with insinuation...spell the sins. Man up. Tell everyone here EXACTLY what you think I am that has you in such ongoing hate mode, and has had for *years* now. Let me help you out with a starter putdown: "He not only does not take me seriously and regard what I say as authoritative and wise, he laughs at me." I think that's your real issue with me, and with others that you have such a hate hard-on for.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
A new depth in the tawdry department. I never accused you of actually drugging young women or raping them thereafter -- only that you have the personality to do so if, ahem, push comes to shove. Anyone who doesn't throttle their ogling leers -- desires to "hit it" as you freely admit to indulging in, is playing with a slippery slope down to predation. What's your middle name, um, Joran? Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > Yeah, I do assume some sort of Prime Directive -- in that the > > universe is so old and that civilizations so advanced are a > > gimme. ll this snatch and grab had to be regulated long ago. > > I can see the exceptions to my speculation having remote > > possibility, but come on -- any imperialistic species would > > have had comeuppance by the inter-galactic police for the crime > > of gluttony. > > Ahem. > > Might I point out that the twif saying this is the > person who is incapable of imagining a human guy of, > say, my age enjoying a conversation with a younger > woman without wanting to (literally, according to > things he has said on this forum) drug her and take > advantage of her, but who believes that little green > men from space are, like, so past that shit. > > Might I also suggest that, just in case little green > men from space turn out to be a reality, Edg carry > around with him a big tube of K-Y Jelly, because his > ass and the asses of people who think like him are > gonna be WAY up at the top of the alien "let's turn > out the twifs" sexual agenda. *By his own standards*, > without the handy tube of K-Y, Edg isn't going to be > able to sit down for a month, if ever again. >
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > Yeah, I do assume some sort of Prime Directive -- in that the > universe is so old and that civilizations so advanced are a > gimme. ll this snatch and grab had to be regulated long ago. > I can see the exceptions to my speculation having remote > possibility, but come on -- any imperialistic species would > have had comeuppance by the inter-galactic police for the crime > of gluttony. Ahem. Might I point out that the twif saying this is the person who is incapable of imagining a human guy of, say, my age enjoying a conversation with a younger woman without wanting to (literally, according to things he has said on this forum) drug her and take advantage of her, but who believes that little green men from space are, like, so past that shit. Might I also suggest that, just in case little green men from space turn out to be a reality, Edg carry around with him a big tube of K-Y Jelly, because his ass and the asses of people who think like him are gonna be WAY up at the top of the alien "let's turn out the twifs" sexual agenda. *By his own standards*, without the handy tube of K-Y, Edg isn't going to be able to sit down for a month, if ever again.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
Here's a good summary of what the future civilizations (from Earth or beyond) can look like from a Physics professor's point of view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4WXEO3Dmhc --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason wrote: > >  >      Duvey assumes that advanced civilisations > that have mastered Warp speed would be highly > moral and ethical. Duvey assumes that there is > some kind of Cosmic 'prime directive'. > >      I think that this has something to do with > resources. If the availablity of resources dip > below a certain point, no ideology works. If > advanced aliens go beyond warp technology and find > a way to transmute matter into any element they > want, then the resources on earth would be > 'chicken feed' and coming after it would be like > taking 'candy away from little children'. > >      But the truth can be stranger that fiction. >  The frightening possiblity exists. There is also > the reverse possiblity, Highly moral and ethical > aliens with standards sooo high that they decide > humans are viruses that should be weeded out > for something more promising like dolphins...?? > > "The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course > of larceny, murder, rapine, and barbarism. We are > always moving forward with high mission, a destiny > imposed by the deity to regenerate our victims > while incidentally capturing their markets, to > civilize savage and senile and paranoidal peoples > while blundering accidentally into their oil wells > or metal mines." >  âJohn T. Flynn, As We Go Marching(1944) > > --- On Sat, 6/12/10, Hugo wrote: > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science? > Date: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 7:47 AM > > Wrong, think of the damage to central American cultures the > arrival of a slightly more advanced group of Spaniards did. > Or any other country for that matter. Was it ever a good thing > for them? This is what Hawking was getting at. > > Do you think humans are so great and secure we wouldn't be > similarly psychically crushed by any civilisation that has > the brains to be able to get all this way? >  > > Hawking with all this new knowledge actually in his hands yet >denies > > Einstein's intuition that the universe is so vast and so >ancient that life > > almost certainly has yielded up civilizations that >re BILLIONS of years > > older than ours and which could have a complete >mastery of physicality -- > > and such beings, Hawking tells us to be >wary of. This comes off as pure > > paranoia > > >-- a paranoia of one who has been, let's say it, as if "struck down >by > >God," and which is therefore understandable. In effect, Hawking >is saying > >that aliens landing would be Gods and that he would advise >us to run > >because they can only be ready to "cripple all of us." > > > > There has never been a person whose mind was not a product of idiosyncratic > > physicality. Hawking seems to be no exception. > >  >  >
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
Yeah, I do assume some sort of Prime Directive -- in that the universe is so old and that civilizations so advanced are a gimme. All this snatch and grab had to be regulated long ago. I can see the exceptions to my speculation having remote possibility, but come on -- any imperialistic species would have had comeuppance by the inter-galactic police for the crime of gluttony. If I can go faster than light, I can do anything with physicality -- no need to grab planets from the rubes. Yes, if they landed today, we'd all be depressed instantly -- and that might be why they haven't landed. I can go outside and ruin the lives of tens of thousands instantly -- my local anthill is just waiting for me to take all their belongings -- ridiculous Just so, we're ants, maybe even merely microbes comparatively. If any civilization lasts longer than, say, a thousand years past its discovery of faster than light travel, I fully expect religion based on "absolutely figured out physics" to hold sway on the morality of a species. The advanced species have their own problems -- immortality is a drag maybe for instance. Edg--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Jason wrote: > >  >      Duvey assumes that advanced civilisations > that have mastered Warp speed would be highly > moral and ethical. Duvey assumes that there is > some kind of Cosmic 'prime directive'. > >      I think that this has something to do with > resources. If the availablity of resources dip > below a certain point, no ideology works. If > advanced aliens go beyond warp technology and find > a way to transmute matter into any element they > want, then the resources on earth would be > 'chicken feed' and coming after it would be like > taking 'candy away from little children'. > >      But the truth can be stranger that fiction. >  The frightening possiblity exists. There is also > the reverse possiblity, Highly moral and ethical > aliens with standards sooo high that they decide > humans are viruses that should be weeded out > for something more promising like dolphins...?? > > "The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course > of larceny, murder, rapine, and barbarism. We are > always moving forward with high mission, a destiny > imposed by the deity to regenerate our victims > while incidentally capturing their markets, to > civilize savage and senile and paranoidal peoples > while blundering accidentally into their oil wells > or metal mines." >  âJohn T. Flynn, As We Go Marching(1944) > > --- On Sat, 6/12/10, Hugo wrote: > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science? > Date: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 7:47 AM > > Wrong, think of the damage to central American cultures the > arrival of a slightly more advanced group of Spaniards did. > Or any other country for that matter. Was it ever a good thing > for them? This is what Hawking was getting at. > > Do you think humans are so great and secure we wouldn't be > similarly psychically crushed by any civilisation that has > the brains to be able to get all this way? >  > > Hawking with all this new knowledge actually in his hands yet >denies > > Einstein's intuition that the universe is so vast and so >ancient that life > > almost certainly has yielded up civilizations that >re BILLIONS of years > > older than ours and which could have a complete >mastery of physicality -- > > and such beings, Hawking tells us to be >wary of. This comes off as pure > > paranoia > > >-- a paranoia of one who has been, let's say it, as if "struck down >by > >God," and which is therefore understandable. In effect, Hawking >is saying > >that aliens landing would be Gods and that he would advise >us to run > >because they can only be ready to "cripple all of us." > > > > There has never been a person whose mind was not a product of idiosyncratic > > physicality. Hawking seems to be no exception. > >  >  >
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
Duvey assumes that advanced civilisations that have mastered Warp speed would be highly moral and ethical. Duvey assumes that there is some kind of Cosmic 'prime directive'. I think that this has something to do with resources. If the availablity of resources dip below a certain point, no ideology works. If advanced aliens go beyond warp technology and find a way to transmute matter into any element they want, then the resources on earth would be 'chicken feed' and coming after it would be like taking 'candy away from little children'. But the truth can be stranger that fiction. The frightening possiblity exists. There is also the reverse possiblity, Highly moral and ethical aliens with standards sooo high that they decide humans are viruses that should be weeded out for something more promising like dolphins...?? "The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine, and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the deity to regenerate our victims while incidentally capturing their markets, to civilize savage and senile and paranoidal peoples while blundering accidentally into their oil wells or metal mines." ”John T. Flynn, As We Go Marching(1944) --- On Sat, 6/12/10, Hugo wrote: Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science? Date: Saturday, June 12, 2010, 7:47 AM Wrong, think of the damage to central American cultures the arrival of a slightly more advanced group of Spaniards did. Or any other country for that matter. Was it ever a good thing for them? This is what Hawking was getting at. Do you think humans are so great and secure we wouldn't be similarly psychically crushed by any civilisation that has the brains to be able to get all this way? > Hawking with all this new knowledge actually in his hands yet >denies > Einstein's intuition that the universe is so vast and so >ancient that life > almost certainly has yielded up civilizations that >re BILLIONS of years > older than ours and which could have a complete >mastery of physicality -- > and such beings, Hawking tells us to be >wary of. This comes off as pure > paranoia >-- a paranoia of one who has been, let's say it, as if "struck down >by God," >and which is therefore understandable. In effect, Hawking >is saying that >aliens landing would be Gods and that he would advise >us to run because they >can only be ready to "cripple all of us." > > There has never been a person whose mind was not a product of idiosyncratic > physicality. Hawking seems to be no exception.
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > > Hugo, are you offering to be my student? Thanks, but no. The fact Einstein turned out to right about a lot of things he thought to be obvious was never under discussion here. In fact if you look at another post I just did you'll see me defending his confidence in his ideas. > From your acid-toned smarming about my opinions of Hawking, I can >tell that > you're not in a studious mood -- and that's dumber than >dumb, because while > you can't fix stupid, being stupid on purpose is >a crime for which a proper > penalty cannot be assessed -- for what >could limit the cost of the > immorality of blinding oneself? Actually I'm always in a studious mood, for some reason it suits you to be offended about my objection to your insulting attitude towards someone who's struggled with a horrifying disability his whole life. I don't believe for a minute that being in a wheel chair has influenced his opinion of whether or not there is a god or alien life, it isn't like they are unreasonable posistions to hold. (Interesting that you interpret my shock at your opinion of Hawking as acid-toned smarming, says a lot about you.) > Einstein was, by my definition of "spiritual," a Maharishi. And >his > honoring intuition was not merely "for show." He knew his math >wasn't up to > the task of embodying his intuition that God doesn't >play dice, and yet he > knew he was right and never once in his life >stopped trying to catch God > red-handed running the universe down to >least construct. This YOUR interpretation of Einstein, for every quote you can find of his supporting the mystical I can find more that don't. Many scientists (Hawking included) use phrases like "mind of god" to describe deep levels of physics, it doesn't mean they think that the universe is fundamentally intelligent in the way we are or in the way Maharishi taught just that they think it possible to know everything in a final physical sense, the original paramaters of creation. > Anyone who's had a thought should know that every single one of >them comes > from a subtle level of existence that is not easily >grasped -- that is, we, > as egos, do not compose our own thinking but >that we are as if victims of a > "thought machine which makes >decisions without consulting the personality." Agreed. As I pointed out in my post to Anatol below. > Einstein peered into his own mind enough to see this and that >despite > uncertainty, true randomness is yet but a concept -- not a >proven entity. > And just as you and I know that our thoughts >are "ours" despite not being on > the "thought making committee," -- >because the thought committee itself is a > product of yet subtler >processes -- Einstein knew that there was "cosmic > mind" that >also "owned" the underlying the processes of nature even if we > could >not have the alacrity to see behind the Uncertainty Curtain of Oz. The analogy doesn't fit, thoughts appear in our minds but we know there is an unconscious process involving large areas of the brain refering to past experience, social conditioning etc. and then deciding what becomes conscious. You can even see it working. The idea that universe also appears from a more complex underlying intelligence is a TM idea not shared by Einstein or any other working physicist, what you have is miniscule potentials in fluctuating fields none of which are fully understood. See "mind of god" above. Unless Einstein actually believed that the universe is under intelligent control at the very micro level in the way John Hagelin does, if so I missed it and it's a *very* religious concept because it appears to be totally unnecessary and of a totally different order of things to him being confident about gravity bending space and time, those things you can visualise, god in control of quantum physics is an invention by mystics and people who need an ultimate being for some reason. And people who like to make money out of others by linking sciencey sounding phrases with their own bullshit new age "therapies." But as I say in my post below, it's possible and so cannot be discounted, but as it's unnecessary for an explanation of how the universe works, why bother? Why bother introducing unnecessary complexities to nature when simpler ones will do just as well. I think it's man's programming to seek greater complexity to explain simpler things, it's a god type hang-up we've yet to get over. Darwin did the best job of demolishing this erroneous idea. What a hero. Him, Newton & Einstein. What a gang! > Today's science is 100% reporting miracles constantly. Depends entirely on your definition of miracle. They appear miraculous because they are largely unexplained. Have you read David Deutsch yet? Try this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jun/10/david-deutsch-multiverse-fabric-reality It should at least give you hope that some quest
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > Gotta say it; I don't claim to be a scientist or even all that current, but I > sure can tell that Hugo's grasp of science is missing at least one can of the > six pack. > It's like Sal is explaining Einstein. Ugh. > > Edg HeHe ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > Gotta say it; I don't claim to be a scientist or even all that current, but I > sure can tell that Hugo's grasp of science is missing at least one can of the > six pack. > > It's like Sal is explaining Einstein. Ugh. > > Edg > "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." Einstein. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anatol_zinc" wrote: > > > > > > > > > What is Science? > > > > Good question, how about: A quest to explain the universe > > independent of our beliefs/opinions of what it might be? > > > > Or simpler: The search for what *is* rather than what we want > > it to be? > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, let's see what I can offer from my 2cents physics PhD about the > > > following quote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hawkins ~ "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is > > > based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and > > > reason. Science will win because it works." > > > > > > > > > > > > Is above assumption the whole truth and nothing but the truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it is not! > > > > > > > > > > > > Hawkins is taking a very narrow view and polarizing it by taking the > > > worst of religion and the best of science. This makes me say that > > > Hawkins, if the above quote is accurate, is much much less of a real > > > scientist than Einstein was. It is true that as a young man Einstein > > > felt that much in the bible was not possible, but as he got older he > > > became more tolerant toward religious views, and overall he had his own > > > cosmic religion and did not shy away from using the word God to mean the > > > supreme unknown intelligence of the universe. > > > > Like most physicists (indeed humans in general) Einstein > > would be fascinated by concepts of god but that doesn't > > mean he believed it and even if he did it wouldn't mean > > such a thing was any more or less likely. There are plenty > > of religious scientists as science is simply a tool for > > working things out, some of these are religious by upbringing > > and simply ignore the contradictions between faith and > > discovery, like the school science teacher on a recent TV > > doc who believed the world was only 4000 years old but knew > > from experiment (and taught as much to pupils) that it is in > > fact billions of years older. He couldn't explain his personal > > disconnect between the two positions but was convinced he was > > right about the biblical age(I consider him functionally > > insane). Of the others I don't know, you'd have to ask > > them but I'm sure they'd agree that a belief in god can't > > be acquired scientifically. > > > > The knowledge uncovered by science is what is important here, > > a scientist believing in god doesn't make god more likely, > > the only thing that would do that is if god turned out to be > > a better explanation than any of the alternatives. > > > > > > > Maharishi said, don't remember his words exactly, that the word God > > > is the most [exalted] of all the words and that not believing in God is > > > simply due to a weak mind. > > > > Rather self-serving don't you think? > > > > > > I know that Maharishi is right about this > > > from my years of studying engineering, math, physics( PhD ) and giving > > > up on God; until I met Maharishi and his lecture "atheists shaking > > > hands with God" ; thank you Maharishi. > > > > > > > > > > > > But, before having all sort of discussions about Hawkins etc, > > > shouldn't we first ask the question whether the initial assumption > > > is valid and true? Even if it may be partially valid, is it not > > > necessary to look at the whole picture, as wide a scope as possible, if > > > one is interested in the whole truth and nothing but the truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > So, how about asking "what is science?" > > > > > > > > > > > > We could define science initially as : > > > > > > Observation => recording observation => analysis => making an initial > > > assumption and giving it a fancy name hypothesis => further observation > > > to confirm assumption => repeated confirmations elevate the assumption > > > into a theory => using theory to make predictions and/or technological > > > applications => often newer better theories replace older narrower > > > theories => > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes older theories have to be discarded as bogus, as mistakes due > > > to wrong assumptions; on the other hand some old theories continue to be > > > practical in the limited environment where they work very well like > > > Newtonian Mechanics > > > > > > > > > > > > However, observation and reason in the above steps are only part of the > > > story. We need to ask "where do the hypothetical assumptions come > > > fr
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung wrote: > > > Gotta say it; I don't claim to be a scientist or even all that current, but I > sure can tell that Hugo's grasp of science is missing at least one can of the > six pack. Why don't you add what you think is missing instead of just chucking more insults around. > It's like Sal is explaining Einstein. Ugh. > > Edg > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anatol_zinc" wrote: > > > > > > > > > What is Science? > > > > Good question, how about: A quest to explain the universe > > independent of our beliefs/opinions of what it might be? > > > > Or simpler: The search for what *is* rather than what we want > > it to be? > > > > > > > > > > > Ok, let's see what I can offer from my 2cents physics PhD about the > > > following quote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hawkins ~ "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is > > > based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and > > > reason. Science will win because it works." > > > > > > > > > > > > Is above assumption the whole truth and nothing but the truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it is not! > > > > > > > > > > > > Hawkins is taking a very narrow view and polarizing it by taking the > > > worst of religion and the best of science. This makes me say that > > > Hawkins, if the above quote is accurate, is much much less of a real > > > scientist than Einstein was. It is true that as a young man Einstein > > > felt that much in the bible was not possible, but as he got older he > > > became more tolerant toward religious views, and overall he had his own > > > cosmic religion and did not shy away from using the word God to mean the > > > supreme unknown intelligence of the universe. > > > > Like most physicists (indeed humans in general) Einstein > > would be fascinated by concepts of god but that doesn't > > mean he believed it and even if he did it wouldn't mean > > such a thing was any more or less likely. There are plenty > > of religious scientists as science is simply a tool for > > working things out, some of these are religious by upbringing > > and simply ignore the contradictions between faith and > > discovery, like the school science teacher on a recent TV > > doc who believed the world was only 4000 years old but knew > > from experiment (and taught as much to pupils) that it is in > > fact billions of years older. He couldn't explain his personal > > disconnect between the two positions but was convinced he was > > right about the biblical age(I consider him functionally > > insane). Of the others I don't know, you'd have to ask > > them but I'm sure they'd agree that a belief in god can't > > be acquired scientifically. > > > > The knowledge uncovered by science is what is important here, > > a scientist believing in god doesn't make god more likely, > > the only thing that would do that is if god turned out to be > > a better explanation than any of the alternatives. > > > > > > > Maharishi said, don't remember his words exactly, that the word God > > > is the most [exalted] of all the words and that not believing in God is > > > simply due to a weak mind. > > > > Rather self-serving don't you think? > > > > > > I know that Maharishi is right about this > > > from my years of studying engineering, math, physics( PhD ) and giving > > > up on God; until I met Maharishi and his lecture "atheists shaking > > > hands with God" ; thank you Maharishi. > > > > > > > > > > > > But, before having all sort of discussions about Hawkins etc, > > > shouldn't we first ask the question whether the initial assumption > > > is valid and true? Even if it may be partially valid, is it not > > > necessary to look at the whole picture, as wide a scope as possible, if > > > one is interested in the whole truth and nothing but the truth? > > > > > > > > > > > > So, how about asking "what is science?" > > > > > > > > > > > > We could define science initially as : > > > > > > Observation => recording observation => analysis => making an initial > > > assumption and giving it a fancy name hypothesis => further observation > > > to confirm assumption => repeated confirmations elevate the assumption > > > into a theory => using theory to make predictions and/or technological > > > applications => often newer better theories replace older narrower > > > theories => > > > > > > > > > > > > sometimes older theories have to be discarded as bogus, as mistakes due > > > to wrong assumptions; on the other hand some old theories continue to be > > > practical in the limited environment where they work very well like > > > Newtonian Mechanics > > > > > > > > > > > > However, observation and reason in the above steps are only part of the > > > story. We need to ask "where do the hypothetical assumptions come > > > from?" Einstein said t
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
Gotta say it; I don't claim to be a scientist or even all that current, but I sure can tell that Hugo's grasp of science is missing at least one can of the six pack. It's like Sal is explaining Einstein. Ugh. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anatol_zinc" wrote: > > > > > > What is Science? > > Good question, how about: A quest to explain the universe > independent of our beliefs/opinions of what it might be? > > Or simpler: The search for what *is* rather than what we want > it to be? > > > > > > Ok, let's see what I can offer from my 2cents physics PhD about the > > following quote: > > > > > > > > Hawkins ~ "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is > > based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and > > reason. Science will win because it works." > > > > > > > > Is above assumption the whole truth and nothing but the truth? > > > > > > > > No, it is not! > > > > > > > > Hawkins is taking a very narrow view and polarizing it by taking the > > worst of religion and the best of science. This makes me say that > > Hawkins, if the above quote is accurate, is much much less of a real > > scientist than Einstein was. It is true that as a young man Einstein > > felt that much in the bible was not possible, but as he got older he > > became more tolerant toward religious views, and overall he had his own > > cosmic religion and did not shy away from using the word God to mean the > > supreme unknown intelligence of the universe. > > Like most physicists (indeed humans in general) Einstein > would be fascinated by concepts of god but that doesn't > mean he believed it and even if he did it wouldn't mean > such a thing was any more or less likely. There are plenty > of religious scientists as science is simply a tool for > working things out, some of these are religious by upbringing > and simply ignore the contradictions between faith and > discovery, like the school science teacher on a recent TV > doc who believed the world was only 4000 years old but knew > from experiment (and taught as much to pupils) that it is in > fact billions of years older. He couldn't explain his personal > disconnect between the two positions but was convinced he was > right about the biblical age(I consider him functionally > insane). Of the others I don't know, you'd have to ask > them but I'm sure they'd agree that a belief in god can't > be acquired scientifically. > > The knowledge uncovered by science is what is important here, > a scientist believing in god doesn't make god more likely, > the only thing that would do that is if god turned out to be > a better explanation than any of the alternatives. > > > > Maharishi said, don't remember his words exactly, that the word God > > is the most [exalted] of all the words and that not believing in God is > > simply due to a weak mind. > > Rather self-serving don't you think? > > > I know that Maharishi is right about this > > from my years of studying engineering, math, physics( PhD ) and giving > > up on God; until I met Maharishi and his lecture "atheists shaking > > hands with God" ; thank you Maharishi. > > > > > > > > But, before having all sort of discussions about Hawkins etc, > > shouldn't we first ask the question whether the initial assumption > > is valid and true? Even if it may be partially valid, is it not > > necessary to look at the whole picture, as wide a scope as possible, if > > one is interested in the whole truth and nothing but the truth? > > > > > > > > So, how about asking "what is science?" > > > > > > > > We could define science initially as : > > > > Observation => recording observation => analysis => making an initial > > assumption and giving it a fancy name hypothesis => further observation > > to confirm assumption => repeated confirmations elevate the assumption > > into a theory => using theory to make predictions and/or technological > > applications => often newer better theories replace older narrower > > theories => > > > > > > > > sometimes older theories have to be discarded as bogus, as mistakes due > > to wrong assumptions; on the other hand some old theories continue to be > > practical in the limited environment where they work very well like > > Newtonian Mechanics > > > > > > > > However, observation and reason in the above steps are only part of the > > story. We need to ask "where do the hypothetical assumptions come > > from?" Einstein said that his [amazing] insights came not from his > > rational mind of observation and reason, but from intuition. And besides > > that Einstein had a scholarly friend who was into eastern philosophy. > > Hm, perhaps the idea for Einstein's Unified Field Theory came > > from the Vedic view of Brahman, the Absolute Source of All? > > And then again perhaps not. The thing about Einsteins insights > (and all
[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Science?
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anatol_zinc" wrote: > > > What is Science? Good question, how about: A quest to explain the universe independent of our beliefs/opinions of what it might be? Or simpler: The search for what *is* rather than what we want it to be? > Ok, let's see what I can offer from my 2cents physics PhD about the > following quote: > > > > Hawkins ~ "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is > based on authority, and science, which is based on observation and > reason. Science will win because it works." > > > > Is above assumption the whole truth and nothing but the truth? > > > > No, it is not! > > > > Hawkins is taking a very narrow view and polarizing it by taking the > worst of religion and the best of science. This makes me say that > Hawkins, if the above quote is accurate, is much much less of a real > scientist than Einstein was. It is true that as a young man Einstein > felt that much in the bible was not possible, but as he got older he > became more tolerant toward religious views, and overall he had his own > cosmic religion and did not shy away from using the word God to mean the > supreme unknown intelligence of the universe. Like most physicists (indeed humans in general) Einstein would be fascinated by concepts of god but that doesn't mean he believed it and even if he did it wouldn't mean such a thing was any more or less likely. There are plenty of religious scientists as science is simply a tool for working things out, some of these are religious by upbringing and simply ignore the contradictions between faith and discovery, like the school science teacher on a recent TV doc who believed the world was only 4000 years old but knew from experiment (and taught as much to pupils) that it is in fact billions of years older. He couldn't explain his personal disconnect between the two positions but was convinced he was right about the biblical age(I consider him functionally insane). Of the others I don't know, you'd have to ask them but I'm sure they'd agree that a belief in god can't be acquired scientifically. The knowledge uncovered by science is what is important here, a scientist believing in god doesn't make god more likely, the only thing that would do that is if god turned out to be a better explanation than any of the alternatives. > Maharishi said, don't remember his words exactly, that the word God > is the most [exalted] of all the words and that not believing in God is > simply due to a weak mind. Rather self-serving don't you think? I know that Maharishi is right about this > from my years of studying engineering, math, physics( PhD ) and giving > up on God; until I met Maharishi and his lecture "atheists shaking > hands with God" ; thank you Maharishi. > > > > But, before having all sort of discussions about Hawkins etc, > shouldn't we first ask the question whether the initial assumption > is valid and true? Even if it may be partially valid, is it not > necessary to look at the whole picture, as wide a scope as possible, if > one is interested in the whole truth and nothing but the truth? > > > > So, how about asking "what is science?" > > > > We could define science initially as : > > Observation => recording observation => analysis => making an initial > assumption and giving it a fancy name hypothesis => further observation > to confirm assumption => repeated confirmations elevate the assumption > into a theory => using theory to make predictions and/or technological > applications => often newer better theories replace older narrower > theories => > > > > sometimes older theories have to be discarded as bogus, as mistakes due > to wrong assumptions; on the other hand some old theories continue to be > practical in the limited environment where they work very well like > Newtonian Mechanics > > > > However, observation and reason in the above steps are only part of the > story. We need to ask "where do the hypothetical assumptions come > from?" Einstein said that his [amazing] insights came not from his > rational mind of observation and reason, but from intuition. And besides > that Einstein had a scholarly friend who was into eastern philosophy. > Hm, perhaps the idea for Einstein's Unified Field Theory came > from the Vedic view of Brahman, the Absolute Source of All? And then again perhaps not. The thing about Einsteins insights (and all similar scientific revelations like the discovery of the shape of DNA in a dream) is that he spent his entire life thinking about physics, energy and matter. He is the first to admit that he was standing on the shoulders of giants, if it wasn't for the discoveries of Newton, Poincare etc. he would never have had his revelations. That the unconscious mind does our thinking for us should come as no surprise as it runs our bodies for us without us even noticing (have you seen how much work goes into programming a
