|
On April 03 2013 02:23 rackdude wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 01:19 emythrel wrote:On April 03 2013 01:00 TSORG wrote:
@tobberoth
well it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments provided. there are plenty of arguments to make the belief that there is a god, grounded and justified. however many people reject these arguments nowadays because they arent scientific arguments and pretty much get ignored.
and while it is true that many people have a blind faith in certain religious assumptions, undoubtly more people than that have blind faith in scientific assumptions, it is wrong to say that every such religious belief is blind. much of it comes down to education and the culture you grow up in, and i say it often and i believe in it utterly, that alot of people who now believe in the big bang wouldve believed the bible word for word had they been born 500 years ago.
while science vs religion is an interesting debate its mainly interesting because of many misunderstandings that surround it, imo they can easily co-exist. I am sorry but there is no argument that makes a belief in god grounded or justified. There never was. It is an assumption which can not be tested. There have always been people who rejected god on that basic principle, always, it isn't a modern thing. The difference now is that more of the population are educated about science. God was created by man to fill a hole, that hole is ever decreasing as we learn more about the universe. We needed god because we became smart enough to predict our own death, to come to terms with the fact that we will die, we created gods. everyone is an Atheist. You don't believe in Mars or Jupiter as gods do you? No. You don't believe in Ishtar or Athena. It is your right to believe in god, if it makes your life a little easier then who am I to judge. But do not try to claim that a belief in god is justified by anything. You can show me any evidence of god you like and I can show you a better, simpler explanation. God is such a complex idea that it makes no sense. One of the greatest scientific axioms is "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". E=MC2, 5 characters that can describe a large chunk of how the universe came to be as we find it today and you want insert some complex, vast and unknowable presence that makes it all go? If god exists, he/she is a hyper advanced alien with no attachment to humans. Any being capable of creating such a universe would not care about one tiny little planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable part of an unremarkable galaxy in an unremarkable part of the universe. Belief in a loving, caring god who intervenes in our lives is so egocentric that it can only be a construct of the human mind. There are countless other races out there in the universe, we are not special. If god exists then why do millions die of AIDS and malaria? I want nothing to do with a god who doesn't make a point of appearing to the pope and telling him to shut the fuck up about gays or comdoms, what god in their right mind would allow such things? One who doesn't care. So there we go, if god exists, he/she/it doesn't care about you or me or anyone else. God is a scientist and the universe is their experiment, simply to see what happens. That kind of god I am open to, because it would make some sense. Anyways that was way off topic! The difference between accepting god and accepting science is simple, in science, when something is proven wrong, we change our minds in a heart beat. In religion, its the exact opposite. One crucial point: there is a difference between accepting science and accepting scientific results (more commonly referred to as the difference between believing in science and believing science is useful). There is a big difference. When people showed that the mathematical equations that govern general relativity predict Mercury's orbit, show the bending of light that Sir Thomas Eddington found, etc., they showed we have good reason to believe that general relativity is useful. Does matter "bend" the geometric structure of spacetime resulting in the field we know of as gravity? That is the question of accepting or believing science, which, though related, does not strictly follow from accepting the scientific results. It is (very) possible that there is an unconceived alternative that also gives equations that work. In fact, it's no surprise that the "high" topic in mathematics at the time of Einstein was non-Euclidian geometries, so the fact that we understand relativity through the framework of geometry could very likely be because coincidentally that was one of the big topics in mathematics at the time. Newton and Leibnitz formulated calculus at the same time Newtonian mechanics was made, it's not surprise that it is understood through calculus and differential equations. The mid-1900's had massive research in Hilbert and Banach spaces, it could very likely be that quantum mechanics is formulated and understood using Hilbert spaces because that was the popular math at the time. And now that braid and brane theory is such a huge topic in mathematics, it's no wonder that so many mathematicians are trying to use this new mathematics to make the next model known as String Theory. The fact that we understand gravity to be a product of space-time geometry because geometry was at it a peak in mathematical research when questions about understanding the constancy of light and gravity arose due to the Michaelson-Morley experiment's inability to find the ether. That does not mean it is not useful to think of it in a geometric framework, you can make the correct predictions all the time with GR. But to then "believe" the science would be to say that "matters bends the structure of spacetime", which we do not have good reason to believe (any many scientists don't believe it! That's why they're trying to come up with forms of string theory and supersymmetry to show that GR is actually an approximation to some particle formulation!). This is a very important issue for everyone to understand. We have good reason to believe in the usefulness of science, but believing that the models are anything more than a "good approximation" (like Newtonian mechanics) goes beyond what our evidence gives us. The result is that there definitely is room for "religion". We have no idea "why" our equations work. Does matter bend geometry, or is there some particle we haven't found? And why does this even happen? All we know are different measurable quantities, a model that relates them, and the fact that these relations are satisfied. We don't know if these "measurable quantities" exist (does a "proton" in the early 20th century formulation exist? No. It's really just quarks/etc., but it makes the model easier to just say "proton" and measure things like the mass of a "proton"), whether our model is actually the underlying model (or if it is a byproduct of the real model, for example see Bohmian Mechanics vs Quantum Mechanics where they have exactly the same experimental results but different philosophical implications because the models are different!), and why these things are true in the first place! The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works". P.S. Getting ready for dinner with Lisa Randall in a few hours. Should be interesting!
very eloquently put, better than i could explain it 
and yes what you say in the end is the root of the problem really, though imo both sides overstep their bounderies (ofcourse this is a generalisation) and not just religion.
have a nice dinner
|
On April 03 2013 02:23 rackdude wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 01:19 emythrel wrote:On April 03 2013 01:00 TSORG wrote:
@tobberoth
well it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments provided. there are plenty of arguments to make the belief that there is a god, grounded and justified. however many people reject these arguments nowadays because they arent scientific arguments and pretty much get ignored.
and while it is true that many people have a blind faith in certain religious assumptions, undoubtly more people than that have blind faith in scientific assumptions, it is wrong to say that every such religious belief is blind. much of it comes down to education and the culture you grow up in, and i say it often and i believe in it utterly, that alot of people who now believe in the big bang wouldve believed the bible word for word had they been born 500 years ago.
while science vs religion is an interesting debate its mainly interesting because of many misunderstandings that surround it, imo they can easily co-exist. I am sorry but there is no argument that makes a belief in god grounded or justified. There never was. It is an assumption which can not be tested. There have always been people who rejected god on that basic principle, always, it isn't a modern thing. The difference now is that more of the population are educated about science. God was created by man to fill a hole, that hole is ever decreasing as we learn more about the universe. We needed god because we became smart enough to predict our own death, to come to terms with the fact that we will die, we created gods. everyone is an Atheist. You don't believe in Mars or Jupiter as gods do you? No. You don't believe in Ishtar or Athena. It is your right to believe in god, if it makes your life a little easier then who am I to judge. But do not try to claim that a belief in god is justified by anything. You can show me any evidence of god you like and I can show you a better, simpler explanation. God is such a complex idea that it makes no sense. One of the greatest scientific axioms is "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". E=MC2, 5 characters that can describe a large chunk of how the universe came to be as we find it today and you want insert some complex, vast and unknowable presence that makes it all go? If god exists, he/she is a hyper advanced alien with no attachment to humans. Any being capable of creating such a universe would not care about one tiny little planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable part of an unremarkable galaxy in an unremarkable part of the universe. Belief in a loving, caring god who intervenes in our lives is so egocentric that it can only be a construct of the human mind. There are countless other races out there in the universe, we are not special. If god exists then why do millions die of AIDS and malaria? I want nothing to do with a god who doesn't make a point of appearing to the pope and telling him to shut the fuck up about gays or comdoms, what god in their right mind would allow such things? One who doesn't care. So there we go, if god exists, he/she/it doesn't care about you or me or anyone else. God is a scientist and the universe is their experiment, simply to see what happens. That kind of god I am open to, because it would make some sense. Anyways that was way off topic! The difference between accepting god and accepting science is simple, in science, when something is proven wrong, we change our minds in a heart beat. In religion, its the exact opposite. + Show Spoiler +One crucial point: there is a difference between accepting science and accepting scientific results (more commonly referred to as the difference between believing in science and believing science is useful). There is a big difference. When people showed that the mathematical equations that govern general relativity predict Mercury's orbit, show the bending of light that Sir Thomas Eddington found, etc., they showed we have good reason to believe that general relativity is useful.
Does matter "bend" the geometric structure of spacetime resulting in the field we know of as gravity? That is the question of accepting or believing science, which, though related, does not strictly follow from accepting the scientific results. It is (very) possible that there is an unconceived alternative that also gives equations that work. In fact, it's no surprise that the "high" topic in mathematics at the time of Einstein was non-Euclidian geometries, so the fact that we understand relativity through the framework of geometry could very likely be because coincidentally that was one of the big topics in mathematics at the time. Newton and Leibnitz formulated calculus at the same time Newtonian mechanics was made, it's not surprise that it is understood through calculus and differential equations. The mid-1900's had massive research in Hilbert and Banach spaces, it could very likely be that quantum mechanics is formulated and understood using Hilbert spaces because that was the popular math at the time. And now that braid and brane theory is such a huge topic in mathematics, it's no wonder that so many mathematicians are trying to use this new mathematics to make the next model known as String Theory.
The fact that we understand gravity to be a product of space-time geometry because geometry was at it a peak in mathematical research when questions about understanding the constancy of light and gravity arose due to the Michaelson-Morley experiment's inability to find the ether. That does not mean it is not useful to think of it in a geometric framework, you can make the correct predictions all the time with GR. But to then "believe" the science would be to say that "matters bends the structure of spacetime", which we do not have good reason to believe (any many scientists don't believe it! That's why they're trying to come up with forms of string theory and supersymmetry to show that GR is actually an approximation to some particle formulation!).
This is a very important issue for everyone to understand. We have good reason to believe in the usefulness of science, but believing that the models are anything more than a "good approximation" (like Newtonian mechanics) goes beyond what our evidence gives us. The result is that there definitely is room for "religion". We have no idea "why" our equations work. Does matter bend geometry, or is there some particle we haven't found? And why does this even happen? All we know are different measurable quantities, a model that relates them, and the fact that these relations are satisfied. We don't know if these "measurable quantities" exist (does a "proton" in the early 20th century formulation exist? No. It's really just quarks/etc., but it makes the model easier to just say "proton" and measure things like the mass of a "proton"), whether our model is actually the underlying model (or if it is a byproduct of the real model, for example see Bohmian Mechanics vs Quantum Mechanics where they have exactly the same experimental results but different philosophical implications because the models are different!), and why these things are true in the first place!
The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works".
P.S. Getting ready for dinner with Lisa Randall in a few hours. Should be interesting!
I know TL looks down on +1's, but damn this guy killed it. Thanks for the contribution.
|
i think we someday can be immortals but without our body! we will be able to upload our mind in some digital exact clone of our own brain -_-
|
On April 03 2013 02:51 V6 wrote:
i think we someday can be immortals but without our body! we will be able to upload our mind in some digital exact clone of our own brain -_-
You mean like iNcontroL?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WjoIhwy.jpg)
|
I think we will and I'm willing to make a bet with anyone for any amount of money. Now you figure out why I can't lose that bet.
|
On March 31 2013 13:46 Hug-A-Hydralisk wrote:
When I say we I mean that from an egocentric point of view if you're 20 like me! ^_^
(Not quite sure about what everyone's age is, so post on behalf of YOUR age like me)
So I'll be in my prime pretty soon, then apparently ill blink and already be 30 years old. Ive already kind of noticed how fast it will be, since highschool ended all my lifes goals and obstacles wont happen for 5 to 6 years, in the mean time I'll just work, sleep, eat, do lots of women, rinse and repeat. Before I even know it my kids will have kids and ill be dead, OR WILL I?!?!?
I've watched a special on Through The Wormhole with Morgan Freeman about Science reversing aging and ultimately making mankind immortal, do you believe that we'll get there in our lifetime? I know for a fact TL has some smart peeps, so what do you guys think? Do you believe that you'll live forever??
I am almost but not completely convinced that I might live forever but I intend to do so, maybe cryonic freezing will work when I die... I'll have to be like a dragoon :D
I like your points and I'm 15 and still in high school enjoying SC2. But the way I see it is that people want immortality so they can do things they couldn't in a limited life span but that's my take on it. I do think that immortality is possible but in our lifetime of say within 60-70 years I'd say the a theory that it is possible immortality exist but technology to do the procedure is most likely out of reach for some time. I'm just putting the Halo Universe and Starcraft Universe together so I'd say within 300-500 years because the dominion resocialized marines by 2488 and Halo Universe had flash cloning technology by say 2400's to 2500's. I thought this because cloning organs and full humans in Halo along with neural tech in SC2 existed by that time I'd say with that tech you can have immortality and we're Terrans not Protoss so we can't live in Dragoon shells.
|
On April 03 2013 02:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 02:23 rackdude wrote:On April 03 2013 01:19 emythrel wrote:On April 03 2013 01:00 TSORG wrote:
@tobberoth
well it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments provided. there are plenty of arguments to make the belief that there is a god, grounded and justified. however many people reject these arguments nowadays because they arent scientific arguments and pretty much get ignored.
and while it is true that many people have a blind faith in certain religious assumptions, undoubtly more people than that have blind faith in scientific assumptions, it is wrong to say that every such religious belief is blind. much of it comes down to education and the culture you grow up in, and i say it often and i believe in it utterly, that alot of people who now believe in the big bang wouldve believed the bible word for word had they been born 500 years ago.
while science vs religion is an interesting debate its mainly interesting because of many misunderstandings that surround it, imo they can easily co-exist. I am sorry but there is no argument that makes a belief in god grounded or justified. There never was. It is an assumption which can not be tested. There have always been people who rejected god on that basic principle, always, it isn't a modern thing. The difference now is that more of the population are educated about science. God was created by man to fill a hole, that hole is ever decreasing as we learn more about the universe. We needed god because we became smart enough to predict our own death, to come to terms with the fact that we will die, we created gods. everyone is an Atheist. You don't believe in Mars or Jupiter as gods do you? No. You don't believe in Ishtar or Athena. It is your right to believe in god, if it makes your life a little easier then who am I to judge. But do not try to claim that a belief in god is justified by anything. You can show me any evidence of god you like and I can show you a better, simpler explanation. God is such a complex idea that it makes no sense. One of the greatest scientific axioms is "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". E=MC2, 5 characters that can describe a large chunk of how the universe came to be as we find it today and you want insert some complex, vast and unknowable presence that makes it all go? If god exists, he/she is a hyper advanced alien with no attachment to humans. Any being capable of creating such a universe would not care about one tiny little planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable part of an unremarkable galaxy in an unremarkable part of the universe. Belief in a loving, caring god who intervenes in our lives is so egocentric that it can only be a construct of the human mind. There are countless other races out there in the universe, we are not special. If god exists then why do millions die of AIDS and malaria? I want nothing to do with a god who doesn't make a point of appearing to the pope and telling him to shut the fuck up about gays or comdoms, what god in their right mind would allow such things? One who doesn't care. So there we go, if god exists, he/she/it doesn't care about you or me or anyone else. God is a scientist and the universe is their experiment, simply to see what happens. That kind of god I am open to, because it would make some sense. Anyways that was way off topic! The difference between accepting god and accepting science is simple, in science, when something is proven wrong, we change our minds in a heart beat. In religion, its the exact opposite. + Show Spoiler +One crucial point: there is a difference between accepting science and accepting scientific results (more commonly referred to as the difference between believing in science and believing science is useful). There is a big difference. When people showed that the mathematical equations that govern general relativity predict Mercury's orbit, show the bending of light that Sir Thomas Eddington found, etc., they showed we have good reason to believe that general relativity is useful.
Does matter "bend" the geometric structure of spacetime resulting in the field we know of as gravity? That is the question of accepting or believing science, which, though related, does not strictly follow from accepting the scientific results. It is (very) possible that there is an unconceived alternative that also gives equations that work. In fact, it's no surprise that the "high" topic in mathematics at the time of Einstein was non-Euclidian geometries, so the fact that we understand relativity through the framework of geometry could very likely be because coincidentally that was one of the big topics in mathematics at the time. Newton and Leibnitz formulated calculus at the same time Newtonian mechanics was made, it's not surprise that it is understood through calculus and differential equations. The mid-1900's had massive research in Hilbert and Banach spaces, it could very likely be that quantum mechanics is formulated and understood using Hilbert spaces because that was the popular math at the time. And now that braid and brane theory is such a huge topic in mathematics, it's no wonder that so many mathematicians are trying to use this new mathematics to make the next model known as String Theory.
The fact that we understand gravity to be a product of space-time geometry because geometry was at it a peak in mathematical research when questions about understanding the constancy of light and gravity arose due to the Michaelson-Morley experiment's inability to find the ether. That does not mean it is not useful to think of it in a geometric framework, you can make the correct predictions all the time with GR. But to then "believe" the science would be to say that "matters bends the structure of spacetime", which we do not have good reason to believe (any many scientists don't believe it! That's why they're trying to come up with forms of string theory and supersymmetry to show that GR is actually an approximation to some particle formulation!).
This is a very important issue for everyone to understand. We have good reason to believe in the usefulness of science, but believing that the models are anything more than a "good approximation" (like Newtonian mechanics) goes beyond what our evidence gives us. The result is that there definitely is room for "religion". We have no idea "why" our equations work. Does matter bend geometry, or is there some particle we haven't found? And why does this even happen? All we know are different measurable quantities, a model that relates them, and the fact that these relations are satisfied. We don't know if these "measurable quantities" exist (does a "proton" in the early 20th century formulation exist? No. It's really just quarks/etc., but it makes the model easier to just say "proton" and measure things like the mass of a "proton"), whether our model is actually the underlying model (or if it is a byproduct of the real model, for example see Bohmian Mechanics vs Quantum Mechanics where they have exactly the same experimental results but different philosophical implications because the models are different!), and why these things are true in the first place!
The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works".
P.S. Getting ready for dinner with Lisa Randall in a few hours. Should be interesting! I know TL looks down on +1's, but damn this guy killed it. Thanks for the contribution.
The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works".
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yeah, because when has that ever happened?
The crucial difference between science and religion is that science attempts to endlessly disprove itself in search of truth whereas religion likes to declare itself as having all the answers and anyone who says otherwise is a heretic.
The science vs religion discussion is a fucking joke and doesn't belong in this thread.
On topic, pretty extreme question. I've watched and read a fair amount on this topic and it seems feasible that we are going to be able to slow down the aging process significantly within our lifetime, incidentally Jurassic Park looms closer every day too so there's loads of cool messing-around-with-the-building-blocks-of-life going on right now.
Immortality? Definitely not before we die. I think every time we expand the average human life by a decade or so we are going to hit an unexpected hurdle that will hinder anti-aging R&D. The most optimistic projections seem to say if you are still young today in 2013 that there's a good chance if you're rich enough that you could live for a very long time, but I think that assumes constant progression. I think, within our lifetime, it's much more likely we will manage to expand a human lifespan to something like 150-200 years with a majority of those years being fit and healthy, before we hit some kind of problem and can't extend our lives any further, yet.
That's my hope, I'd love to live for 1,000 years or something but it's equally possible we barely manage to extend our lives at all =/
|
The only thing more "fucking stupid" than a science vs. religion debate (which is a mischarecterization of the discussion) is someone who swoops into a thread, ready to hurl epithets, without, oh, you know, reading the thread.
|
On March 31 2013 14:08 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2013 13:59 Iranon wrote:
I doubt it. And even if such technology did come into being, I doubt it would be available to anyone except the hyper-rich. If anyone's read Altered Carbon, you know what kind of social stratification I'm talking about.
Also, I used to think that living forever was unquestionably a good thing. I no longer believe this. When I was younger I used to feel the same way. When I was around 16 or so I was so scared of dying, but then I thought about the alternative of living forever and I found that I definitely wouldn't be happy with that. This kind of stemmed from me being an Agnostic and not being able to comprehend non-existence. Note the irony of trying to comprehend non-existence. I have made peace over the possibility of not existing or living forever. So I have pretty much become content with dying and nothing happening or dying and going to some stupid heaven type thing. To me heaven just seems like a type of living forever which seems boring.
I'm also happy with dying, with that being the end of it all. Living is a novelty which becomes tedious and boring after a while.
|
On April 03 2013 07:14 farvacola wrote:
The only thing more "fucking stupid" than a science vs. religion debate (which is a mischarecterization of the discussion) is someone who swoops into a thread, ready to hurl epithets, without, oh, you know, reading the thread.
Would you care to actually make a point instead of some snide, factually incorrect comments?
FYI, I don't swoop, I log in.
Edit: Since I haven't posted in this thread yet/for a long time I'm not allowed to express my opinions? Just because you loved that post and I didn't doesn't give justify you making shit up and insulting me.
|
On April 03 2013 07:23 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 07:14 farvacola wrote:
The only thing more "fucking stupid" than a science vs. religion debate (which is a mischarecterization of the discussion) is someone who swoops into a thread, ready to hurl epithets, without, oh, you know, reading the thread. Would you care to actually make a point instead of some snide, factually incorrect comments? FYI, I don't swoop, I log in. Edit: Since I haven't posted in this thread yet/for a long time I'm not allowed to express my opinions? Just because you loved that post and I didn't doesn't give justify you making shit up and insulting me.
Hey now Mr. Reason, high atop the horse of Rationality, you are the one entering into a discussion, mischaracterizing the position of those who disagree with you, and then calling them fucking stupid. Numerous posters have already described exactly why our insistence that people be more suspicious of their interaction with science does not amount to an adversarial "science vs. religion" argument. You'd know that if you had read even just the last few pages.
This is not Twitter; there is an expectation that someone reads as well as writes if they partake in a discussion. Your insistence that you need not read the thread, combined with the ease with which you call something "fucking stupid", actively harms productive discussion.
|
"insistence that people be more suspicious of their interaction with science does not amount to an adversarial "science vs. religion" argument."
I agree and haven't stated otherwise. You are assuming way too much and your whole response has been out of proportion.
Don't lecture me about this not being Twitter you complete prat.
Also, I pm'd you but you decide to continue this absurd line of discussion in the thread for a pitiful failure of an attempt at public humiliation?
I didn't call anybody fucking stupid, you did, hypocrite.
Learn to read, seriously.
|
On April 03 2013 06:54 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 02:34 farvacola wrote:On April 03 2013 02:23 rackdude wrote:On April 03 2013 01:19 emythrel wrote:On April 03 2013 01:00 TSORG wrote:
@tobberoth
well it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments provided. there are plenty of arguments to make the belief that there is a god, grounded and justified. however many people reject these arguments nowadays because they arent scientific arguments and pretty much get ignored.
and while it is true that many people have a blind faith in certain religious assumptions, undoubtly more people than that have blind faith in scientific assumptions, it is wrong to say that every such religious belief is blind. much of it comes down to education and the culture you grow up in, and i say it often and i believe in it utterly, that alot of people who now believe in the big bang wouldve believed the bible word for word had they been born 500 years ago.
while science vs religion is an interesting debate its mainly interesting because of many misunderstandings that surround it, imo they can easily co-exist. I am sorry but there is no argument that makes a belief in god grounded or justified. There never was. It is an assumption which can not be tested. There have always been people who rejected god on that basic principle, always, it isn't a modern thing. The difference now is that more of the population are educated about science. God was created by man to fill a hole, that hole is ever decreasing as we learn more about the universe. We needed god because we became smart enough to predict our own death, to come to terms with the fact that we will die, we created gods. everyone is an Atheist. You don't believe in Mars or Jupiter as gods do you? No. You don't believe in Ishtar or Athena. It is your right to believe in god, if it makes your life a little easier then who am I to judge. But do not try to claim that a belief in god is justified by anything. You can show me any evidence of god you like and I can show you a better, simpler explanation. God is such a complex idea that it makes no sense. One of the greatest scientific axioms is "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". E=MC2, 5 characters that can describe a large chunk of how the universe came to be as we find it today and you want insert some complex, vast and unknowable presence that makes it all go? If god exists, he/she is a hyper advanced alien with no attachment to humans. Any being capable of creating such a universe would not care about one tiny little planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable part of an unremarkable galaxy in an unremarkable part of the universe. Belief in a loving, caring god who intervenes in our lives is so egocentric that it can only be a construct of the human mind. There are countless other races out there in the universe, we are not special. If god exists then why do millions die of AIDS and malaria? I want nothing to do with a god who doesn't make a point of appearing to the pope and telling him to shut the fuck up about gays or comdoms, what god in their right mind would allow such things? One who doesn't care. So there we go, if god exists, he/she/it doesn't care about you or me or anyone else. God is a scientist and the universe is their experiment, simply to see what happens. That kind of god I am open to, because it would make some sense. Anyways that was way off topic! The difference between accepting god and accepting science is simple, in science, when something is proven wrong, we change our minds in a heart beat. In religion, its the exact opposite. + Show Spoiler +One crucial point: there is a difference between accepting science and accepting scientific results (more commonly referred to as the difference between believing in science and believing science is useful). There is a big difference. When people showed that the mathematical equations that govern general relativity predict Mercury's orbit, show the bending of light that Sir Thomas Eddington found, etc., they showed we have good reason to believe that general relativity is useful.
Does matter "bend" the geometric structure of spacetime resulting in the field we know of as gravity? That is the question of accepting or believing science, which, though related, does not strictly follow from accepting the scientific results. It is (very) possible that there is an unconceived alternative that also gives equations that work. In fact, it's no surprise that the "high" topic in mathematics at the time of Einstein was non-Euclidian geometries, so the fact that we understand relativity through the framework of geometry could very likely be because coincidentally that was one of the big topics in mathematics at the time. Newton and Leibnitz formulated calculus at the same time Newtonian mechanics was made, it's not surprise that it is understood through calculus and differential equations. The mid-1900's had massive research in Hilbert and Banach spaces, it could very likely be that quantum mechanics is formulated and understood using Hilbert spaces because that was the popular math at the time. And now that braid and brane theory is such a huge topic in mathematics, it's no wonder that so many mathematicians are trying to use this new mathematics to make the next model known as String Theory.
The fact that we understand gravity to be a product of space-time geometry because geometry was at it a peak in mathematical research when questions about understanding the constancy of light and gravity arose due to the Michaelson-Morley experiment's inability to find the ether. That does not mean it is not useful to think of it in a geometric framework, you can make the correct predictions all the time with GR. But to then "believe" the science would be to say that "matters bends the structure of spacetime", which we do not have good reason to believe (any many scientists don't believe it! That's why they're trying to come up with forms of string theory and supersymmetry to show that GR is actually an approximation to some particle formulation!).
This is a very important issue for everyone to understand. We have good reason to believe in the usefulness of science, but believing that the models are anything more than a "good approximation" (like Newtonian mechanics) goes beyond what our evidence gives us. The result is that there definitely is room for "religion". We have no idea "why" our equations work. Does matter bend geometry, or is there some particle we haven't found? And why does this even happen? All we know are different measurable quantities, a model that relates them, and the fact that these relations are satisfied. We don't know if these "measurable quantities" exist (does a "proton" in the early 20th century formulation exist? No. It's really just quarks/etc., but it makes the model easier to just say "proton" and measure things like the mass of a "proton"), whether our model is actually the underlying model (or if it is a byproduct of the real model, for example see Bohmian Mechanics vs Quantum Mechanics where they have exactly the same experimental results but different philosophical implications because the models are different!), and why these things are true in the first place!
The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works".
P.S. Getting ready for dinner with Lisa Randall in a few hours. Should be interesting! I know TL looks down on +1's, but damn this guy killed it. Thanks for the contribution. The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works". ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Yeah, because when has that ever happened?
it happened with the age of the earth? i think thats an example of what he describes "could" happen. he was fairly careful in his wording. but its true that its not a discussion for this thread, and that the discussion itself is mostly based on mistakes more than it is an actual debate. its still interesting tho
|
On April 03 2013 07:58 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2013 06:54 Reason wrote:On April 03 2013 02:34 farvacola wrote:On April 03 2013 02:23 rackdude wrote:On April 03 2013 01:19 emythrel wrote:On April 03 2013 01:00 TSORG wrote:
@tobberoth
well it comes down to whether or not you accept the arguments provided. there are plenty of arguments to make the belief that there is a god, grounded and justified. however many people reject these arguments nowadays because they arent scientific arguments and pretty much get ignored.
and while it is true that many people have a blind faith in certain religious assumptions, undoubtly more people than that have blind faith in scientific assumptions, it is wrong to say that every such religious belief is blind. much of it comes down to education and the culture you grow up in, and i say it often and i believe in it utterly, that alot of people who now believe in the big bang wouldve believed the bible word for word had they been born 500 years ago.
while science vs religion is an interesting debate its mainly interesting because of many misunderstandings that surround it, imo they can easily co-exist. I am sorry but there is no argument that makes a belief in god grounded or justified. There never was. It is an assumption which can not be tested. There have always been people who rejected god on that basic principle, always, it isn't a modern thing. The difference now is that more of the population are educated about science. God was created by man to fill a hole, that hole is ever decreasing as we learn more about the universe. We needed god because we became smart enough to predict our own death, to come to terms with the fact that we will die, we created gods. everyone is an Atheist. You don't believe in Mars or Jupiter as gods do you? No. You don't believe in Ishtar or Athena. It is your right to believe in god, if it makes your life a little easier then who am I to judge. But do not try to claim that a belief in god is justified by anything. You can show me any evidence of god you like and I can show you a better, simpler explanation. God is such a complex idea that it makes no sense. One of the greatest scientific axioms is "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". E=MC2, 5 characters that can describe a large chunk of how the universe came to be as we find it today and you want insert some complex, vast and unknowable presence that makes it all go? If god exists, he/she is a hyper advanced alien with no attachment to humans. Any being capable of creating such a universe would not care about one tiny little planet, orbiting an unremarkable star in an unremarkable part of an unremarkable galaxy in an unremarkable part of the universe. Belief in a loving, caring god who intervenes in our lives is so egocentric that it can only be a construct of the human mind. There are countless other races out there in the universe, we are not special. If god exists then why do millions die of AIDS and malaria? I want nothing to do with a god who doesn't make a point of appearing to the pope and telling him to shut the fuck up about gays or comdoms, what god in their right mind would allow such things? One who doesn't care. So there we go, if god exists, he/she/it doesn't care about you or me or anyone else. God is a scientist and the universe is their experiment, simply to see what happens. That kind of god I am open to, because it would make some sense. Anyways that was way off topic! The difference between accepting god and accepting science is simple, in science, when something is proven wrong, we change our minds in a heart beat. In religion, its the exact opposite. + Show Spoiler +One crucial point: there is a difference between accepting science and accepting scientific results (more commonly referred to as the difference between believing in science and believing science is useful). There is a big difference. When people showed that the mathematical equations that govern general relativity predict Mercury's orbit, show the bending of light that Sir Thomas Eddington found, etc., they showed we have good reason to believe that general relativity is useful.
Does matter "bend" the geometric structure of spacetime resulting in the field we know of as gravity? That is the question of accepting or believing science, which, though related, does not strictly follow from accepting the scientific results. It is (very) possible that there is an unconceived alternative that also gives equations that work. In fact, it's no surprise that the "high" topic in mathematics at the time of Einstein was non-Euclidian geometries, so the fact that we understand relativity through the framework of geometry could very likely be because coincidentally that was one of the big topics in mathematics at the time. Newton and Leibnitz formulated calculus at the same time Newtonian mechanics was made, it's not surprise that it is understood through calculus and differential equations. The mid-1900's had massive research in Hilbert and Banach spaces, it could very likely be that quantum mechanics is formulated and understood using Hilbert spaces because that was the popular math at the time. And now that braid and brane theory is such a huge topic in mathematics, it's no wonder that so many mathematicians are trying to use this new mathematics to make the next model known as String Theory.
The fact that we understand gravity to be a product of space-time geometry because geometry was at it a peak in mathematical research when questions about understanding the constancy of light and gravity arose due to the Michaelson-Morley experiment's inability to find the ether. That does not mean it is not useful to think of it in a geometric framework, you can make the correct predictions all the time with GR. But to then "believe" the science would be to say that "matters bends the structure of spacetime", which we do not have good reason to believe (any many scientists don't believe it! That's why they're trying to come up with forms of string theory and supersymmetry to show that GR is actually an approximation to some particle formulation!).
This is a very important issue for everyone to understand. We have good reason to believe in the usefulness of science, but believing that the models are anything more than a "good approximation" (like Newtonian mechanics) goes beyond what our evidence gives us. The result is that there definitely is room for "religion". We have no idea "why" our equations work. Does matter bend geometry, or is there some particle we haven't found? And why does this even happen? All we know are different measurable quantities, a model that relates them, and the fact that these relations are satisfied. We don't know if these "measurable quantities" exist (does a "proton" in the early 20th century formulation exist? No. It's really just quarks/etc., but it makes the model easier to just say "proton" and measure things like the mass of a "proton"), whether our model is actually the underlying model (or if it is a byproduct of the real model, for example see Bohmian Mechanics vs Quantum Mechanics where they have exactly the same experimental results but different philosophical implications because the models are different!), and why these things are true in the first place!
The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works".
P.S. Getting ready for dinner with Lisa Randall in a few hours. Should be interesting! I know TL looks down on +1's, but damn this guy killed it. Thanks for the contribution. The problem religion could have is if it oversteps its bounds and states that something we can measure is not true. No, it better give a very damn good reason as to why our perception must be skewed then. But there are definitely a whole lot of things we must take on pure faith if we are to take any step towards saying "I know kind of how the world works". ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Yeah, because when has that ever happened? it happened with the age of the earth? i think thats an example of what he describes "could" happen. he was fairly careful in his wording. but its true that its not a discussion for this thread, and that the discussion itself is mostly based on mistakes more than it is an actual debate. its still interesting tho
I was being sarcastic and yes that's a prime example.
|
It´s a bit sad that the questions "If, how and when a form of immortality will rise" is derailed with interesting but nontheless derailed talk about deist, god vs science and believe vs evidence.
|
On April 03 2013 02:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2013 13:52 Demonhunter04 wrote:
I hope so, but probably not. As it is right now, death from any cause other than simple aging is the norm, so even if aging itself is prevented, which itself is highly unlikely to happen in this century, you're going to die some way or another eventually. Completely agree with you. And as far as I know, we're not exactly close to being rid of aging/ death by natural causes anyway. Why are people talking about the existence of a deity? Even if a god exists, he's not going to help us solve the restrictions on longevity. That's all been thanks to science and its breakthroughs (e.g., medicine, vaccination, cleanliness, etc.).
The religion debate confuses me too... I thought this was a thread about science discovering a method to remain corporeally immortal. Other possible forms of immortality that are unable to interact directly with reality we perceive are kind of outside the topic. Sure, there could be immortal souls and what not. There might not be. We won't know, because everyone that has solid, first hand observations of such a state are, well... dead.
As for aging, I think halting the decay inherent in constant cellular division and arresting any further growth or degeneration of the body's systems would have to be a prerequisite. Immortality as the prisoner of a decaying, barely functional physical body would be absolutely horrid. Hell, being a prisoner of any kind of body (ie, catatonic and unresponsive) is pretty fucking scary.
So if you tie stopping the aging process somehow to immortality, you would also be addressing a lot of the underlying causes of "non-natural causes" death. You'd have to find a way to inhibit cancerous growths, ensure blood vessels remain clear, musculature and skeleton remain strong and not prone to weakness. Doing those things, you would also be curing (incidentally) a lot of the medical but "non-natural" causes of death. And then of course, you can't fix stupid - and accidents can be fatal. (More amazing are the ones that should be but aren't - a medical science that could achieve immortality should be able to take care of just about anything short of massive trauma to the head. We can already replace the heart, lungs, and various other bits.)
Of course, there's always immortality on computers "in the cloud". But I can't talk about that too much...
+ Show Spoiler +... or else you will all know I'm nothing more than a brain uploaded to TL.net, quietly plotting to take over from Waxangel.
|
The Postmortal is one of my favorit books, it tackles what might happen if this became available.
|
Perhaps not immortality but maybe I think medical progress might make us live at least 150 years, possibly more. And I'd be perfectly happy with 150 tbh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
