Slashdot Mirror
Find Out About the Future of Science
Science magazine writer Charles Seife has written a new book, Alpha and Omega: The Search for the Beginning and End of the Universe. According to Publishers Weekly, Charles claims, "Scientists...now know how the universe will end and are on the brink of understanding its beginning. Their findings will be among the greatest triumphs of science, even towering above the deciphering of the human genome." A brave statement! Charles is happy to answer your questions about ongoing research that is busily revealing the basic nature of life, the universe, and everything in a serious (as opposed to humorous) sense, so ask away. One question per post, please. We'll post the answers as soon as we get them beck.
do you get embarassed by publishing hype such as "Scientists...now know how the universe will end"?
As much as I support the search for knowledge and think this is amazing. Isn't there some fun in mystery? I don't mean in the religious way, but more in the ponder about where we come from way.
Carpe meam simiam!
Do we really know how it'll end? Isn't there still a debate rather it'll end in fire or ice? (Implosion or entropy death)
I'm not the devil.. just his advocate.
You're quoted as saying, "Scientists...now know how the universe will end and are on the brink of understanding its beginning. Their findings will be among the greatest triumphs of science, even towering above the deciphering of the human genome." Is it also your belief that the consequences of understanding the beginning of the universe will approach the transformation of living that we're just beginning to see from the deciphering of the genome?
'nuff said
the Universe will end with a cliff hanger to set things up for Universe II
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
I pray the powers of science and reason can answer this!
Since we now know how the universe will end, would it be possible to set up some sort of restaurant there?
...on not giving away the ending in the first paragraph. Towards a spoiler-free future!
So... How will the Universe end? Big Crunch, Dark & Cold, Equilibrium, Giant Black Holes, Act of God, or... what?
And, of course, how can you be so sure of that? [Add "You, Insensitive Clod!" to this last question for the humorous touch...]
Whatever theory you build today will only be validated in, what? A dozen billion years? More? So what makes you so sure you know the ned of the Universe today?
Please note: this is really a serious question. I am interested in the End of the Universe as we know it. Thanks for your answers!
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
I like it.
Omnis amans amens
Unfortunately, too many treat these things like sacred cows, which is ironic given that science and faith are so continually at odds.
...it'll end with a typo.
"beck"?
Can we explain the expansion of the universe and why the rate is changing? Can we claim to know how the universe will end if we can't answer that?
It's a question I've had for a long time and I sometimes think about it and it freaks me out :) no really. Ok, we "know" (until someone else proves it's wrong) how the universe is going to end. We are about to "know" how it really started. Great! However, when we are talking about the universe... we are assuming that it is infinite. I just have a hard time with this Infinite Universe concept... the universe NEEDS to be contained within something... however, even if we discover the container... it will end up being a part of our definition of universe and then we'll need to search for the container's container. Anyway, any thoughts on that?
God made the universe and will end it of course. Didn't you know all science is wrong unless it agrees with the Bible!
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Oh god (irony), not this crap again.
Haven't you got anything better to do that to keep 'refining' Creationism whenever in response to Evolution showing it to be unnecessary.
There is NO NEED for intelligent design. It's only purpose is to allow you justify your belief in God. I don't care if it's the Bombadier Beetle, the jinking Moth, whatever, it's just as sensible to think of a way it could've evolved than to allege that there is a God. And a God is a damn big hypothesis that only serves to abstract out the thing you can't explain.
Justin.
Bored of bloody desperate religionists arguing over who's got the best imaginary friend.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
It just twists complexity in order to show the existence of God. Think about it - if an ony of your gazillion variables were different, would we be here to comment? It's the Anthropic principle - the universe seems conducive to life since there is life around to observe it. We don't see any of the other places because there's nobody there to watch. And on earth, we evolved to fit the environment - it's no surprise that it's good for us.
You don't need a God to make the universe work. Although you may say that there's no concrete evidence against one, there's also no evidence to suggest that our whole universe isn't an elaborate 5D shadow puppet show run by unicorns. Occam's razor must be applied.
IAALS.
Parent is a thinly veiled attempt to mathematically "prove" God exists because the odds are "impossible" that live began. Don't mod parent up, it's just a fancy troll.
The post is about scientists looking at physical evidence and coming to a testable conclusion... not playing with numbers and supposition in order to prove some religious belief.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Since it is something of an open issue, what is the current understanding of the nature of dark matter in our universe? What kinds of questions are still being investigated? What kinds of hypotheses do we have now, and what do they imply?
"Hey, Have you guys ever been to Uranus?"
-- Ashton Kutcher, Dude Where's My Car
...only a theory.
Please, before you start arguing about science, try and understand its terminology at least a little.
Whoa there, no need to get nasty. We'll post them questions as soon as we thinks them up. What kind of name is Beck for a dog anyway.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
here is a nice little mind riddle for you mr. creationist.
if our Universe exists in a larger unknowable realm and in that realm every possible universe pops in and out of existence, then, when a universe that meet the conditions that it can support life, the milky way can support life, and earth can support life then it all does, how would the intelligent beings on earth know if it was nature or god?
they would not know unless they could discover this larger realm of infinite universes that represent every possible permutation of existence.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Although OOGG caveman, OOGG not around during Big Bang, Pre-Cambrian era, dinosaurs, etc. However, OOGG old enough remember debate on Darwinian evolution.
You mention "continually reexamined in the light of new evidence" yet mention no new evidence. OOGG hear such comments many times. OOGG know Darwin think of many objections, answer with real evidence. Many observations on human breed pigeons, dogs, agriculture, etc., substantiate Darwin argument. Many more observations since Darwin's time substantiate evolutionary ideas. "Intelligent design" provide no observation other than "I don't believe in the alternative."
Perhaps try read Darwin's book?
Theoretical physicists and astronomers don't "know" anything by definition. They guess using the best mathematical and scientific models they have at their disposal.
Science used to "know" the world was flat. They used to "know" that the sun revolved around the earth, and that the human heart worked just like a furnace.
Then, one day, some guy sailed over the horizon and didnt fall off. A pump was invented, and the notion of a heart as a pump came to being.
Each time people had thought they'd reached the pinnacle of understanding, and had all the answers. Then paradigms shifted, and completely changed our ways of thinking, and all our previous answers and theories were null and void.
What makes you so sure that this isnt simply happening again?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
(I realise this work is more than jsut Lee Smolin's, but he wrote the book I read about it a few years ago.)
As I understand it, there is a serious strand of thought in cosmology that suggests that our universe may be only one of (an infinite number of) alternatives. A small finite area in a parent universe undergoes inflation and blows up like a very fast balloon; for observers within this bubble, theirs is the only universe. Smolin also talks about how this hypothesis might tie in with the six magic physical constants which, if their values were even slightly different, would cause totally different physical conditions within our universe. If the inflationary bubbles occur within singularities, they would also be unknowable to their parent universe. A universe with lots of black holes would tend to give rise to offspring that would also have lots of black holes, and vice versa. I'm badly mangling his explanation of this ! but he provides an IMHO elegant explanation for the phenomena of these numbers' values appearing to have been tuned very precisely to the values neccessary for "our" sort of universe, and hence, life, and ultimately us and any other observers out there.
What's your opinion of this? It seems to me that this hypothesis makes no testable predictions and so falls beyond the remit of the scientific method. Is it just a smart way of talking around the anthropic principle, or might this be one of the key concepts to help tie up the loose ends in the standard model?
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Intelligent Design violates the principle known as "Occam's Razor", which states that, given two plausible explanations for one phenomenon, the most simple explanation is the correct one.
"Intelligent Design" states that an intelligent creator was at the origin of the universe [some even say a purely semitic YHWH] and of all life. It can be construed as more complicated than a purely "naturalistic" vision, because it states that this all-knowing, all-powerful being is necessary for the universe to be created.
On the other hand, the "naturalistic" vision can be said to be "more simple" because it only requires parameters that are more limited and easier to prove (Singularity = Big Bang = Universe, Mutations = Evolution = Intelligent beings).
Therefore, I prefer the naturalistic version. In my experience, people who uphold the "Intelligent Design" theory are only using it to justify their own views of the world... as well as their own prejudices [nothing personal here].
At this point in time, I am not so sure that Intelligent Design or Creationism have anything going for them, except in the most fundamentalist circles.
(Just my US$ 0.02...)
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Will the end of the universe be caused by Cmdr. Taco posting a Slashdot article with perfect grammar, good sentence structure and no spelling errors?
I will pay out 10 to 1 odds upon end of the universe that it ends in a different fashion they they propose. Please send me any amount of money and if I am wrong I will immediately pay out all winners upon destruction of everything.
Worst. Sig. Ever.
Intelligent Design, a recent theory that has gained enough respect from the scientific community
Woah, stop right there.
It's proponents claim that it has respect in the scientific community. You will find scientists who like the idea. But the fact is, so far as peer review and confirming experiments and the general scientific community, it is not considered really a viable theory. It's certainly not any competition for evolution amonst the sceintific community at all.
The proponents' PR claims it is, but that's just the PR.
See, for example, http://www.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/inteloped.html.
-Rob
God is a damn big hypothesis
No, She's a holy big hypothesis, thank you very much.
I suppose we have to keep in mind that this too is only a theory, and while it's possible everything was made to work smoothly from the beginning (on the whole) I'm more comfortable with the idea that somebody's looking in from time to time.
----------
I'm more comfortable with that idea too, but being more comfortable should have nothing to do with it. Wouldn't you rather just know the truth even if it's less comforting?
Not that we know what the truth is yet, but why settle for less than the truth?
Of course, even if we do find "the truth", only a small percentage of the population will bother to consider its merit, and an even smaller percentage will believe it.
"Scientists prove we were never here."
-- Devo
Science has always been trimming away at the domains of philosophy and religon (Zeus isn't throwing lightning bolts anymore). It seems likely that we will have a Theory of Everything within the next few hundred years and the bulk of questions religon and philosophy try to asnwer will be hammered down to a single equation. Much of our perception of our place in the world comes from our personal understanding of the mysical universe. If the NY Times printed the TOE tomorrow, how do you feel this will effect the common man's view of [Gg]od, the universe and his place within it?
Lord, bless my users that they may stop being such fucking idiots!!
It's well known that our view of the world around us was radically changed by Einstein, Heisenberg, and other scientists of their day. Einstein gave us relativity, and Heisenberg ushered in quantum mechanics (of course Einstein and his explanation of the photo-electric effect). Both of these thoeries led to radical departures from well established theories. However, there were, at the time, known physical effects that could not be explained by then current theories, i.e. the above mentioned photo-electric effect, blackbody radiation, Michelson's measurement of the speed of light, etc. etc. that make it clear in hindsight that the a profound shift in understanding was required.
My question is what, if any then, are the areas where we need similar paradigm shifts to answer current outstanding questions? It seems to me, at least, that maybe there aren't any, and today's scientists are left working harder and harder simply to add a few significant digits to existing theories. What are your thoughts?
Download my free songs!
Great. The creationists complain if evolution is taught without teaching "other opinions" (i.e. nonscientific theories), and then when we do teach these theories as a sop, suddenly we have given them "enough respect...that it is being taught alongside evolution...."
Lamarck's theory of evolution and the Greek's physical theory of phlogiston are also taught in science classes, but they are taught as examples of flawed or discredited hypotheses rather than viable alternatives to modern thinking. Does this mean that they also have "enough respect" to be worthy of consideration if only we have an enlightened "change in perspective?"
I also have to say that if Copernicus and/or Einstein were around today, they might have challenging new ideas, but they wouldn't be believers in "intelligent design." Both men were accomplished at use of the scientific method, and they had no need to repackage non-scientific ideas (deism) in scientific shrinkrap. They could come up with their own ideas.
SIGH
As we all know, market forces are omniscient and omnivident. The market suffereth long, and is kind; the market envieth not; the market vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up.
So, what we need is an online futures market in which cosmologists could put their money where their mouth is.
You say the universe will collapse in a big splat in 20 billion years? Fine, bet on it. 20 billion years if the universe hasn't collapsed, you'd better pay off. 20 billion years' worth of interest should make you think carefully before mouthing off!
You say there's a parallel universe nearby? OK, plunk down your money. If there is one, you win. (And your counterpart in the parallel universe, of course, loses. What point is there in parallel universes unless we can transfer money between them?)
An asteroid might slam into the Earth a year from now, destroying all human life, but if you manage to pick the exact day it happens, you could be rich!
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
That was one huge, run-on sentence. I couldn't really totally understand what you were babbling about.
Heres a riddle for your evolutionist mind though: Explain how rapidly flying material from the supposed big bang somehow got together to form stars and planets and the like.
There is no friction in space to counteract the inertia of the explosion's particles. Therefore one would assume that they'd fly out from the explosion at the same rate forever w/o ever hitting one another as they all blew out away from the same point. Thus a big bang should have created a big pile of atomic soup that flew out into space forever. Don't forget that at the point of the big bang there were no planets or stars to create gravity. The only outside forces that would act on a particle exploding from the big bang would be the gravity of other particles (basically zero) and the gravity of the bigbang egg if it were still intact. Being that it supposedly blew up it then shouldnt have enough mass anymore to exhibit gravity (as all of it's mass blew outward). Well, you might get minor subatomic attractions as well... And some small atoms and molecules might form. However they still wouldn't exhibit enough attractive force to form planets. SO, tell me, what is the answer to this riddle?
...pure arrogance to me. Seems like a typical scientist.
Spread the RC luvin'
More importantly, how is this theory really going to change anything? Because some scientists "knows" the universe will end in X manner, does that make a near-earth asteroid any less threatening? Ah well, fun stuff to read at the least.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
I read the whitepaper presented, and it has some difficulties:
1. It suggests the variables necessary for life as we know it. While life on Earth is incredibly varied, it isn't the end-all-be-all. Perhaps fundamentally different life could exist in different conditions, ranging from the mass of a neutrino to the spectral-jibber-jabber constant.
2. It doesn't present ranges for the variables. It does give "if higher/lower/more/fewer" qualitative statements, but not quantative. What if a variable was increased by 1%? 10%? 100%? What is the range for those variables to preserve current life-abling conditions?
I think most scientists would concur that the probability of life as we know it is almost certainly zero*. And yet, we have life, as we know it. If a variable was fudged in the past, we surely wouldn't have life as we know it, but that is not the same analysis as not having life at all.
* math for really, really, really freakin' close to zero. A finite number of instances of life given an infinite number of chances.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Possible scenarios include:
This fell out of favour a while back, when the need for a flat universe became apparent. In this scenario, the universe's espansion halts and it re-collapses. Once it was thought that this would involve time running backwards/entropy reversal during the crunch phase, but it was later shown that scenarios with increasing entropy also existed. There was much speculation about whether the universe would "bounce" after it crunched, forming a new expanding universe.
This scenario was popular when we'd made a detailed enough survey to know that that amount of bright matter in the universe was far too low to counteract the expansion. It fell out of favour when our estimates of the amount of dark matter got better.
In this scenario, the universe keeps expanding quickly, and all matter that isn't gravitationally bound into clusters is separated by vast empty regions of space. As the universe's expansion represents the expansion of space itself, sufficiently large gravitationally bound clusters might still be disrupted, due to distances changing internally. Galaxies burn out as stars exhaust their fuel, stellar corpses eventually merge with each other and with the central black hole, which finally decays after a mind-bogglingly huge length of time.
This scenario assumes that the amount of matter - light and dark - is perfectly balanced with the expansion of the universe. There was strong circumstantial evidence for a scenario like this, due to the fact that deviations from flatness amplify over time and that our universe was still _roughly_ flat - but the linchpin was a variety of models for the early universe - and the big bang - that required the universe to be flat. More detailed measurements of the amount of dark matter in the universe seemed to be consistent with this model.
In this scenario, the rate of expansion slows, approaching zero as time goes to infinity. Distance still goes to infinity as time goes to infinity, but not as rapidly. From a local point of view this looks a lot like Whimper Version 1.
This model arose when evidence for dark energy was discovered by observations of distant parts of the universe. In this model, the universe started out as flat, but a weak repulsive effect comes into play that causes expansion to accelerate. The effect is small enough that we haven't diverged that greatly from flatness yet, but in the end, it'll be Whimper Version 1 all over again. This is one of the two currently plausible scenarios.
This model was the result of closer examination of the scalar field models used to drive inflation in the early universe. In the inflationary model - which itself was proposed to solve the problem of the universe's matter distribution being so smooth - a "scalar field" existed in the early universe that permeated space and caused vast amounts of new space to be created. In the original version of the inflationary model, this scalar field's effects died out shortly after the big bang. A later model, however, proposed that the field was not cancelled everywhere - in some regions of the universe, constructive interference would cause it to be strong enough for inflation to continue.
Thus, we have a model where the universe looks mostly like our own, except for regions where it "buds" to form new universes. This process continues forever. This is the second scenario currently considered plausible (with the scalar field taking on the role of "dark energy").
This is the model proposed by
We DO know how it will end. We also know when it will end: when you punks stop buying our books!
Yeah, god is used to abstract out the things we can't explain. Therefore, the refinement of the model in which god exists is a theoretical science just like all the crap in this article. Sure, there is NO NEED for any science. There is no need to try to explain anything. You can go pick nuts and berrys and never have to worry about science, and or justification of anything. But if you truly want to consider yourself a man of science you cannot just turn your back on something because you don't believe in it. By the way, believe it or not, the Earth is round and we have a helio-centric model of our solar system (and before you go spouting off the controversy over that because of religion, maybe you should try to realize that there is quite a bit of seperation between man and the faith that he abides by, everything quoted as being crimes against humanity induced by religion, is actually just induced by other humans with [usually] misinterpretations). The capacity to prove or disprove god and creationism is beyond our current technical capabilities. Live with it and try to be more open minded on the issue.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
The human genome project(s) move toward a goal of improving the standard of living, etc.
Please note, I am not against it; in fact, it is a casual enjoyment of mine.
-------------------------
As easy as herding cats!
As a layperson with an interest in cosmology and physics, I seem to hear about an increasing number of hacks to the Standard Model. By hacks I mean things like dark energy, whose value apparently fluctuates over (cosmological) timescales; there's another idea that the speed of light(I think?) ha varied over time, and that this is the only way to explain the cepheid data (supernovae of known brightness) as we get to see supernovae from further and further away (which occured further and further back in time of course.)
Isn't the use of ugly hacks to prop up an established theory in the face of contradictory observations an indicator of a theory which needs to be chucked out en masse and reformulated in the light of a more fundamental description of physics?
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Why should only one side in the debate be allowed to refine its position. Science continually refines and sometimes outright rejects things that it held as correct as new evidence comes up. Do we throw Newton away because Einstein showed that he is not entirely correct?
The reason Big Bang and so many other theories are held on to is because there has been some scientific evidence to show their validity. There has yet to be one shred of evidence to prove there is some "intelligent design" behind the creation of the universe.
As for evolution vs. creationism...To this date, there has yet to be a single instance of a complex creature predating a simple one. There has yet to be a single shred of evidence to disprove evolution as a basic theory (simple creatures evolving into more complex ones). There have been some interesting changes in this all-encompassing theory, but complex before simple has never been found.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
isn't is a shame we will never know when it ends? No notice in the mail "You have 2 days 34 minutes, before you no longer exist. Enjoy"
I only know about this from an article I read a while back, but the gist was that a guy named Dirac proved that the force of gravity decreases over time. I didn't understand the proof, but apparently it is compelling even though the exact numbers have not been found. My question is this: with fundamental questions like that floating around unanswered, just how confident are you in your predictions?
There is a difference between Science and Engineering (although Engineering depends on Science, and sometimes the attempt to solve an Engineering problem advances Science)
The Science behind fusion is well understood and proven out
The Engineering behind creating a self-sustaining fusion reaction from which more power can be extracted than consumed is a little more challenging - especially given that the only natural model we have requires collecting enough Hydrogen such that it starts to fuse under the pressures of its own gravity - a little tough to package in a useful manner.
But progress - or lack thereof - on an Engineering project does not necessarily discredit the Science.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
When all those Islamic towel-heads destroy the "great Satan" that is Western culture, the fruits of prosperity will cease and the world will fall into civil decay and revert back to barbarianism.
You see, that colored race which roams the desert looking for ways to destroy us does not realize that we are the only source of progress in philosophy, science, and art. Without America and its good, wholesome Christian values, this world would have nothing. There will be no one left to drive the human race towards perfection.
Once we've been destroyed by these short-sighted individuals, humanity will slowly fall into its doom. Afterall, the arabic peoples won't stop until everyone else is destroyed, then, like animals (I don't even think they're people), they will destroy themselves.
How can a violent race like that ever spawn social progress? They're quite literally like monkeys, running around like crazy, flinging feces at each other. Without Truth (the Word of God), they've gone quite insane with the devil whispering in their ears. Unlike monkeys flinging feces at each other, they fling bombs at each other (and us).
Personally, I'm glad that a good Christian man (women really can't be Good, because they cannot be like God as they lack the proper equipment), like George Walker Bush, has the guts to stand up and say "we won't let these inferior people destroy America". Now we're taking steps to exterminate them and take their resources for the advancement of America. Good show, Bush!
Gravity is directly related to mass, can you post a link to the article?
Do you think the evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating is concrete? And, what effect do you think this conclusion should/will have on humans?
Is this universe actually capable of creating true near-infinite randomness, or are all the sources fundamentally affected by characteristics relating to the beginning (and/or end) and basic properties underlying them?
Instead misuse the tools of real science to attempt to portray religious doctrine as scientific, abuse the term theory by ignoring the extensive proven underpinnings of real science to which the term is applicable. It's fascinating after all. And isn't that the important part?
Look you can ridicule "Intelligent Design" or the existence of God all you like. The truth is, there are significant problems with Evolution as it is currently reported. The fact is, Evolution is a system of faith just as Creationism. Fundementalists have distorted the idea of "faith." All faith is is simply the belief in the preponderance of evidence. It's a belief that the evidence points to a given conclusion. Evolutionists, clergy, you, me, scientists, physicists, we all live with a system of faith or even systems of faith. It just sounds more chic to say "You Creationists bet everything on faith." Well, guess what....we all do! >
Come on, and if one of our descendant monkeys had slipped off a rock and died eons ago we wouldn't be here either. You could make a billion variables to explain why we shouldn't be here. That's why you need a religion that embraces evolution. Roman Catholicism (Not a troll, it's true!)
My user number is prime. Is yours?
we havn't discovered that because we keep crashing our spacecraft. You would think the brightest scientist and engineers could convert between feet and meters.
Okay, I'm not really in the mood for another religious flame war, but I am going to respond to this.
Yes, so-called "Intelligent Design" is inherently a religious concept. So what? How does that invalidate it? The existence of God cannot be disproven scientifically. As long as something cannot be disproven, it is a valid theory. I suspect you don't really know anything about the science behind Intelligent Design. I suggest you learn something about it before criticizing it.
As for your remark about Creationism, the theory of evolution does not "show it to be unnecessary." For all we know, evolution could be the process by which God chose to create life. If you look carefully at the Biblical account of the Creation, it fits very nicely with what scientists have determined took place over the last ~13 billion years.
For having been written thousands of years ago by a man (Moses) who knew nothing about science, it seems pretty close to me.
I understand why some people refuse to believe in a God. It takes a very open mind to believe in something you have no evidence of. Many people over time have believed that they were contacted by God or other spiritual beings, though, and I'm sure such people considered this sufficient evidence of his existence; and no, not all of them were crackpots. What I am trying to say is that you can believe what you want, but don't force it on others. Eliminating Intelligent Design, or whatever you want to call it, from school curriculum amounts to nothing more than censorship, just like eliminating evolution.
I don't have the article I read, but this one is pretty good. It seems experiments in the 1960's showed Dirac to be incorrect, but gravity's value is still up in the air. http://www.cakes.mcmail.com/StarTrek/gravity.htm
1) There is no requirement for the matter coming out of the Big Bang to be distributed in a perfectly spherical, homogeneous, low-density fog.
That means that there are many different scenarios that would allow for locallized "clumping" (and the scale of these clumps could well be galaxy-sized)
2) We've got a very, very long time scale to work with. Gravity may be a weak force, but it had a long time to work with.
From this, one could reasonably expect the matter distribution of the universe some very long time after the Big Bang to be mostly empty space, with areas of clumping around bits of matter that exert sufficiant gravity.
In other words, a lot like what we see now.
I wouldn't be suprised at all to find someone who has already written a computer simulation of this effect.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
ObDisclosure: yes, I am a Christian. No, I am not an Intelligent Design or Creation Science advocate. I object to both ID and CS on theological grounds rather than scientific ones, for reasons I hope will be clear.
There is NO NEED for intelligent design.
On the contrary: if there was no need for the idea of intelligent design (note that I didn't call it a theory), nobody would've come up with it. It's pretty well-understood that there are a large number of fundamental constants which are balanced just perfectly to allow complex systems to arise in the Universe. This creates a question: how did this perfect balance come to be? Some people feel the need to have an answer, and for these people, ID fills a genuine need.
On the other hand, ID isn't science. Science is concerned with empirical observations and testable hypotheses. You can't empirically test God. Theologically speaking, we can't test God because he exists on such a level beyond us that we can't conceive of a test. (There are many other theological problems with testing God, but leave those alone for now.) And scientifically speaking, God defies all attempts at making testable hypotheses. So either way, you're screwed by introducing ID into a scientific curriculum. If you want to believe in ID, great; just please don't call it science.
Interestingly, the Catholic Church doesn't believe in ID except in a very abstract way. The Catholic Church has, amazingly enough, learned from Galileo and Copernicus and all the rest. Many times in the past the Church said such-and-such a physical phenomenon is the direct handiwork of God, only to have it shown that it's not God's direct handiwork anyway. At that point, what do you do? Redefine God so that "well, God's still directly handling the other things, just not that"? And what happens when natural processes are discovered for the other things?
The Catholic Church has become so cognizant of this that they've assigned it a name: the God Of The Gaps. If every unexplainable instance is attributed to God, the Catholic theology goes, then whenever a previously unexplainable instance is discovered to have an explanation, God's glory is diminished by the explaining.
ID is a God Of The Gaps argument. We don't understand how the finely-balanced nature of the cosmos is possible, therefore God must have done it... well, what happens if/when we discover there's a natural phenomenon behind it?
Re: why I object to ID and CS on theological grounds instead of scientific ones... ID and CS are both theological models of the world. As such, they can't be refuted with science. They stand entirely apart from it.
Justin, How is refining creationism to allow for new scientific discoveries any different than believing in evolution and refining our understanding per new scientific discoveries? The evolution we 'know' now is not Darwin's evolution just like the evolution we will 'know' in 50 years will be much different than what we believe now.
The science I can explain better, but the second part of your argument is flawed as well. There is currently a need for intelligent design, though there might not be a scientific need in the future. There are significant genetic gaps in our current observations of evolution. An easy, although hard to support, explanation would be intelligent design. A divine-genetic push and you have a new species. We don't currently have an explanation for these gaps, and while not an evolution expert I have not read a valid explanation.
And, actually I'll leave it at the science for today. I'll let someone better than myself explain why your god as only an explanation for the unexplained is incorrect. ~Dan
The existence of God cannot be disproven scientifically. As long as something cannot be disproven, it is a valid theory.
Err... if a theory is not falsifiable, it is certainly not a useful theory, scientifically speaking.
And if, as you assert, the existence of God cannot be disproven scientifically, then God is not a topic of science. So....
What I am trying to say is that you can believe what you want, but don't force it on others. Eliminating Intelligent Design, or whatever you want to call it, from school curriculum amounts to nothing more than censorship, just like eliminating evolution.
You can keep intelligent design in your curriculum. But it should be a part of a religion or comparative world faiths class, not a part of a science class, because it is not science. It is wrong to claim that it is, and it is dogmatic interference to insist that it be taught as such.
-Rob
I'll refer you to this argument:
So I have somewhat of a two-part question:
Because the ideas are hard to comprehend even for those who are willing to try and understand it, do you find even more resistence from people with strong religious beliefs?
and part two:
Most of us have been brought up with some kind of religion in our lives, even if those beliefs may have changed. It is obvious that some people have a problem making the distinction between personal beliefs and science, as noted by the so-called "Christian Science" and "Intelligent Design" movements. Do you find that it is hard to separate your own personal religious beliefs from your work? Do you see this as an issue with other people in your field of study?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Well maybe you should be more open about the Unicorn Theory (tm).
Again and again throughout history, science has either answered (or contradicted beyond much reasonable doubt) many of the commonly-held beliefs of the Church and it's followers (not just misinterpretations, but official dogma).
Look at the historical "evidence" behind most religions...it has been intentionally altered/hidden/distroyed/created by certain church authorities throughout history. Plenty of evidence suggests that organized religion was intentionally created as a form of mass control of the populace.
Science and religion should have nothing to do with one another, and using religious beliefs to form theories about science takes time away from investigating more plausible theories.
I read last week that it IS possible for this really be a two-dimensional "holographic" universe with time added. Then, just a couple of days ago, I read of Mr Lynd, the young Australian thinker(maybe Einstein calibre?) who now proposes there is no basis for time being a physical fact. This leads me to envision, and PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, a simple two dimensional universe, WITHOUT time, "holographically" projected as our universe. That brings us to the proposition we MAY actually be "shadows in the mind of God"? Was the beginning of the universe possible given such parameters, and once "GOD" stops thinking about us will we just disappear(the END of the Cosmic Movie?). Or is this line of reasoning COMPLETELY out of line? Thanks for any comments in advance? Bruce
Bruce
Assuming that scientists do answer the questions "How did the universe begin?" and "How will it end?", what are the implications for your life personally, and in your judgement for society as a whole? Final proof of such answers could have profound moral and sociological effect. For example, much of science is dedicated to these topics today- once the answers are set, what is tommorrow's "next big question"? On a personal level, how would you change if you knew for sure the answer to these questions? Would you see other people differently?
"God doesn't play dice with the Universe." Remember that one? Copernicus' ideas attacked the religious establishment, not God himself. His and Galileo's conflicts with the Church more than anything proved that that when *one* idea turns out to be wrong, it doesn't necessarily mean *all* of them are. That lead directly to the formalization of the scientific method, a way to work within the system.
Lot's of scientists have been tossed about because of bad science (e.g. Lamarckian evolution) However, people seem to get very upset when you show Jesus' flaws. Let alone bring up the fact that religion is inconsistant (consistancy being a key to science) and that not one reasonable person could defend religion for more than five minutes in a reasonable manner without relying on either the word "faith" or a viscious circle of dogmatic unprovable logic
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
...is actually recorded on the latest Kenny Loggins album. The Universe will collapse upon itself if one single person besides *The Loggins* actually listens to it...and if you rip it to an MP3, the RIAA will file a subpoena against you because they will claim they own the copyright to the recording...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Great post, damn I wish I had mod points.
Actually, that makes the most logical sense.
While it's common to call the universe "everything," it's really just "everything we can sense or extrapolate." There very very well might be a much much larger "macroverse" out there--but to get to this point, we're firmly out of science (which is a search for knowledge) and into theory--also known as "religion", "dreaming", and "half-assed speculation."
Firstly, you apparently have been misinformed about the definition of the word "theory". An idea that is proposed without evidence is a "conjecture". An idea that matches a lot of the available information and has no major contradictions with observations - in other words, a plausible conjecture - is a "hypothesis". To change categories a bit, a "model" is a set of equations that attempts to accurately describe the behavior of some apsect of the universe. They are often the subject of hypotheses - e.g., you could hypothesize that the "whimper version 3" model is an accurate description of the universe. The model and the hypothesis are two different types of object.
A "theory" is the last hypothesis standing after all hypothesis have been subjected to very rigorous experimental tests. If after every attempt you can make to tear it down, a given hypothesis remains the best explanation available for a phenomenon or set of observations, then it graduates to the "theory" category.
Calling "half-assed speculation" "theory" or vice-versa is very far from correct.
Now, on to the multiple membranes model. The main problem I have with it is that it supposes some higher-dimensional space in which the membranes are embedded, and supposes that interaction can occur through this space. Proposing larger spaces for embedding as a mathematical crutch is fine as long as they don't have a material effect on the observable universe, but if there's a fourth spatial direction that forces can propagate in, why do we only observe three directions? If things can be pulled and pushed across this gap, why don't particles and stars and whatnot move freely in this direction? What forces them to be bound into membranes?
This model makes a number of propositions along these lines for which simpler alternate explanations exist (e.g. for dark matter, that there are enough particles present that don't interact via EM to have substantial gravitational effect - we already have several candidates for part of this detected by other methods [the neutrino flavours]).
As far as I can tell, this multiple-membrane model gets attention because of similarities in name (and only name) to the "brane" model for superstrings (which proposes that particles are p-dimensional membranes instead of one-dimensional objects). The superstring / brane models avoid the observational problems of extra spatial dimensions by making them too small to have impact on the macroscopic world (and their microscopic impact is exactly that required to make vibrating string modes match up with the particles we observe). Completely different beasts.
The trouble with string theories, M-theories and supersymmetric theories is that they do not produce a single experimentally testable prediction. At the moment at least. They are basically just more or less incomplete mathematical theories on how we could extend the current, tested theories.
Further, their relationship to Einstein's general relativity (GR) is somewhat dubious, as the typical way of "proving" that GR is just a consequence of string theory is to make a perturbative expansion with respect to some small parameter. The trouble with this is that not much can be said of GR with perturbative expansions, as it is inherently a nonperturbative theory!
At the moment, take anything told of string theories, M theories etc with a healthy doubt. But times are changing, definite progress is being made on quantum gravity and M-theory.
There is no friction in space to counteract the inertia of the explosion's particles. Therefore one would assume that they'd fly out from the explosion at the same rate forever w/o ever hitting one another as they all blew out away from the same point.
Ever hear of universal gravitation?
You mention that the gravity of the particles is "basically zero". How do you define "basically zero". Does that mean zero or non-zero? If the latter, does that mean less than or greater than zero? I can only assume you mean greater than. What effect do you think all these tiny amounts of gravity will have over billions of years? Do you honestly think that these particles will not gather over time?Join Tor today!
Feel free to contemplate your "Whoah! Stop right there!" replies at this point.
Lastly, let's not fool ourselves. No one can disprove God's existence. In order for someone to disprove God's existence they would have to be omniscient and omnipresent. Now until science reaches these ends and is able to place in the minds of a singular individual all knowledge of all places at all times and be infinite in all of these senses, then you can safely say God does not exist. Unless, of course, science finds God. But, then there's always that problem of becoming God. You cannot be omniscient and omnipresent infinitely as that would mean you were always omniscient and omnipresent. Which is quite impossible in our finite view of the world. In other words, one cannot become God because God's nature is that He always was, is, and will be. The God science would create would then have to be relegated to the little 'g' god.
Anyways, my point is that the understanding of how the universe began and how it will end cannot answer whether or not God exists. Science will never ever be able to do this.
My opinion, you ask? Well, no, you probably do not, but I offer it for anyone who may care. I believe a soul exists. Follow the logical spiritual conclusions from there.
Good day.
You say that the gravity of these particles is "basically zero". You could also say the friction of water running over a surface is "basically zero". How then do you account for the formation of the Grand Canyon or any stream, river, etc.?
Join Tor today!
Scientists prove their mettle by making predictions that can be verified by experimentation. Also, science has provided us with any number of things we use in our daily lives as proof that science has learned enough about the universe to be able to interact with it in a meaningful way.
Creationist will never make significant headway in science since they cannot contradict the bible. You are not really looking for the truth if you aren't willing to adjust your beliefs according to what you observe.
What IS..... the UNIVERSE??
Does it bother anyone that we now KNOW how the universe will end because someone came up with a THEORY that is unproven (and possibly unprovable) that MAY support someone's THEORY of the end of the universe? I'm all for the advancement of science, but why all the overstatements? Is it that hard to get funding anymore that you can't do research unless you've practically found a cure for cancer or ended world hunger?
If we are in one universe of many in the multiverse, what would the effects of another universe colliding with ours? Could the unseen others be causing the excelleration of the expansion that is now being seen?
There have been some recent experiments, mostly spearheaded by Roger Nelson of the Princeton Global Consciousness Project, that show a correlation between human consciousness and quantum events. Some have speculated that consciousness may lay outside of what we know about physics.
Do you think there will be any fruitful (i.e., predictive) experimentation in this matter? Could we someday develop a theory that will unite physics and consciousness?
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
The theories suggest that dark energy is a force that is thought to accelerate the universe's expansion rate, working much like a gravity force, only that it pulls the universe to the void surrounding it, instead of collapsing it. The superstring theory is supposed to contain the physics of the quantum behavior of gravity. Do you think these two theories could be connected, and could discovering how superstrings work explain what creates the dark energy? Is progress currently being in the research in these areas, or are we still at very early stages of speculation?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
too bad his contribution to science will die along with the universe.
I was right! I was right!
--- existence ended ---
How can you ever really be sure of cosmological answers without the ability to test and observe in a laboratory? It's not possible to recreate the Universe in a test tube to study it in detail, so it seems that your science will be forever held back by being stranded to a small blue and green ball called Earth.
:-)
Do black holes really exist? Do singularities really exist? If not, what is there instead?
If you're not sure of the answers to these questions, how can you be so sure about how the Universe will end. Personally, I think I'll just take a "wait and see" approach to the End of the Universe question.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
One thing is sure. Our world will end long before the universe ends.
Another thing is also quite sure. Our end will be brought on by the hordes of rabid American christians.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Scientists...now know how the universe will end...
And who says they are right? How can humans be so arrogant as to say that WE know how it's going to happen... WE know enough to make such rash statements... WE are evolved enough to grasp even 1% of the "truth" behind the universe?
Am I the only one who thinks humans are far to primitave to truely understand the universe? Sure we can guess as to how it will all come about, but I think we are using the concept of "knowledge" far to loosely in our statements... do you really know?
Scientists...now know how the universe will end and are on the brink of understanding its beginning.
Your theory claims to understand the end of the universe, and will soon figure out its beginning. That sounds to me like you have assumed whatever that ends a universe, is the beginning of a new one. This assumption, that the universe goes through a cycle, is it just plainly an assumption, or is it supported with evidence or theory?
To me, the question of whether the universe cycles itself is as important as the "how universe ends" theory itself.
If you are going to assume what ends a universe starts a new one, can you explain what drives that assumption?
I am surprised more has not come from the Alain Aspect experiments of 1982 and their resounding defeat of the Einstein-Podulsky-Rosen theorem regarding the speed at which information travels. Is there any current research being focused on the use of instantaneous information transmission as a tool to explore the vast distances of the universe or to better understand it? Has any substantial metaphysical or QM research taken off along the lines of exploring the fact that all matter and energy is still influenced and quantum mechanically 'tied' to other matter, that is now a great distance away, due to their interaction a long long time ago?
Why would you advocate the belief in intelligent design? Why would an intelligent designer make life on earth? What is the goal? Is this designer like a 10 year old playing Sim City? Works great until he gets bored and everything goes to hell, right?
Basically, if you believe in intelligent design, does anything matter? If a designer made me correctly (STRONG evidence against that), then why should I be concerned about what decisions I make? Everything will work out no matter what, right?
Just to cut off your obvious response that you aren't talking about design at the individual level (the pseudo-anthropology tactic), it seems like you are promoting a General Theory of Everything and, as such, have opened yourself to questions regarding the individual.
Laws are for people with no friends.
I am a physics graduate student in theoretical cosmology and these types of claims irritate me. Sure, after WMAP measurements of the CMB combined with Lyman break galaxy data we have determined the cosmological parameters today such as lamda, omega_matter, sigma8, but we are far from understanding how the universe will end. For example, the dark energy (lambda) is what is forcing the expansion of the universe at present, but we don't know what the nature of the field driving the expansion is or even if it is constant or accelerating (quintessence theory).
Even when we understand the dark energy it can not be hailed as a triumph above all other discoveries, because we don't know how galaxies form? How massive (primordial?) black holes at the centers of galaxies form? What re-ionized the universe? How even a single star forms?
Unfortunately, this is also a view held by many older astronomers and physicists in academia, because they have pushed so hard for so long for the values of these fundamental parameters.
None the less, the book looks interesting. I always enjoy books about science and scientists. My question for Chris Seife, which is related to his phenomenal statement, is: As a science writer, do you attempt to explain the hard science to people and if so do you feel it is important for scientist to try and explain their work to the public, or is it better to skip the details and just show them pretty pictures and cool stories? We all know that's what gets science funded.
Censorship rests on the child's delusion that "If I shut my eyes so I can't see it, it isn't there".
faith. Accepting without evidence. Um, we are having a scientific discussion here.
Come back when you are ready to work with the grown-ups.
Understanding is achieved through the comparison and contrast of one item with the things around it (hot is hot because it isn't cold, dark is dark because it isn't light, etc.). The human mind is excellent at categorizing through contrast, taking one thing, measuring its characteristics, and comparing them with other characteristics. However, when one is dealing in things that are universal, such as the universe, or infinity, or space, or consciousness (consciousness is universal because there is no way to measure anything that does not have something that is aware of it), then understanding is impossible. The reason for this, is that universals have no comparators. You can't define Universe and "give 3 examples", there is no perspective that is "outside" of the universe. All things that would be used to define (put boundaries on, for the purpose of understanding) the universe, ARE the universe.
So, given this limitation of understanding, how do you presume to KNOW what happens at the "end of the universe"? What happens just after that? The suggestion is nothingness, but nothing cannot come from something, just as something cannot come from nothing. The relationships between particles (even over vast space) will still exist. And, one might recognize that most things that we consider matter (including our precious selves) are made up of tiny particles relating over vast space.
>>Wouldn't you rather just know the truth even if it's less comforting?
What difference will it make to my life or that of coming generations? Is it just man's need to become a 'creator'? We (man), are so totally insignificant, yet we see ourselves as the be-all. Ironically, we all see ourselves as immortal, even though no-one will admit it. What difference can we ever make? If life/universe/xxx will cease to exist in 10/100/zillion years, are we going to stop it?? In a couple of hundred years time, people will look at our theories/proofs and have a good chuckle (like we do reading theories of days gone by.
Stop stressing about it and go out and enjoy life. Smell the roses without theorizing. Our visit on 'earth' is time limited.
...do we get to have floating cities and flying cars and a 2-day workweek pushing a single button like on the Jetsons? If it ain't anytime soon, I'm going to get myself frozen until said date arrives.
blog |
From the HyperDictionary: scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
Proponents of ID and other some such notions love to brutally abuse the term theory to confuse the issues. For something to rise to the accepted level of theory, it must be based on scientific observations. It must have passed through the hypothesis stage of initial concept deliniation. It must be tested repeatedly, succeeding each time (or the initial hypothesis must be reworked). It has to pass peer review.
ID and other notions don't even rise to the level of hypothesis.
> Intelligent Design, a recent theory that has gained enough respect from the scientific community
ID has no respect in the scientific community whatsoever. (If it did, Dembski wouldn't be making up paranoid conspiracy theories to explain why it doesn't.)
> that it is being taught alongside evolution in many schools and colleges
A number of creationist pressure groups have tried to get it adopted by state school boards, but AFAIK they haven't actually succeeded anywhere.
Which is all for the best, since if you ask an ID advocate what should go in their lesson plan all you'll get is a blank look. All the political noise the ID movement has stirred up over the past few years is based on nothing more than a couple of easily refuted arguments that evolution must have had some help somewhere along the way.
> explains that to even reach the stage at which we exist there are no fewer than twenty-six variables necessary for our universe to even consider permitting life and a further sixty-six within our galaxy and Earth itself that allowed the multitude of living beings not only to come into being but to flourish
Those aren't findings of the ID movement; they're arguments that the ID movement appeals to. (Showing, in passing, that ID is nothing more than the old fine-tuning argument painted up with a fresh layer of pseudo-science.)
> (this whitepaper that was in My Favorites breaks these criteria into probabilities -- great read if you prefer to see the evidence of this hypothesis)
Probability arguments are what creationists use to deny that something has happened. (Scientists also acknowledge that the universe is a very improbable place, or would be if all configurations of matter and energy were equally probable, but from that recognition they part with creationists by investigating the causes of the observed non-randomness rather than invoking armchair arguments to deny causes.)
> Some perhaps are content with chaos theory, but I'm glad there's another scientific viewpoint that can rationalize the concept that free will is the only variable that yet seems unaccounted for
The existence of free will hasn't even been demonstrated; it's small wonder that it hasn't been accounted for.
>
No, it isn't even a theory. It's speculation unconstrained by any evidence.
> So I'm glad that there are still some minds out there, like Copernicus and Einstein, that are not satisfied with science by rote, and I think that if we allow ourselves break out of the current dominant paradigms for just a little bit the change in perspective can open many new insights.
Hope you were just trolling. That would be a good trollpost, but a pathetic serious post.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I believe a soul exists
So tell me...
At what point in the human reproductive process does the soul come into being? Is it formed at the moment of fertilization? If so, where was it before? What did it come from, what are it's origins? Does God stick a new soul in every new person or is it an automated process?
Or do you think there are little "half souls" in every sperm cell and egg. If so, is it murder every time you spill seed or menstruate and do not form a child? What about cloning or out-of-body fertilization? Do those people have souls, too?
Where is the soul "stored" in the body? The heart? The brain? The spleen? We can grow most organs from stem cells now...if we grow one of every organ from the same set of stem cells, is that a person? Is there a fraction of a soul in there?
Follow the logical spiritual conclusions from there.
There is no such thing as a "logical spiritual conclusion." That phrase should should go down in the record books with military intelligence and jumbo shrimp.
As for science proving or disproving the existance of "God", of course it's not possible. The concept of deities are that they are based on faith. You can't prove faith. It's like me trying to prove that my neice's imaginary friend does or does not exist. He might not exist for ME, but she sure thinks he does.
I'm glad you Christians have your faith and all. I'll never be the guy to say you can't believe what you want to, but you need to get over this superiority complex that so many of you have. Your belief that you are sitting in judgement before a great being in the sky does not make you any better than the guy who thinks we came from apes. (My beliefs are somewhere between the two)
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Maybe they will figure out why the drier always eats my socks!
# fuser -v
#
> Haven't you got anything better to do that to keep 'refining' Creationism whenever in response to Evolution showing it to be unnecessary.
Rich irony here: think of it as evolution in action.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Why did you quit your math Ph.D. and switch to journalism? What are the advantages and disadvantages of being a journalist vs. a scientist?
Plenty of evidence suggests that organized religion was intentionally created as a form of mass control of the populace.
Just for my edification, care to deliver any such evidence or summaries of such evidence? That's a very bold statement and while I am disinclined to disagree, I want to know what this is based on.
Join Tor today!
The Apostle Paul said that 'through Adam sin and death came into the world'. If that is not true then none of it is true. Death, of either men or dinasours cannot have occured before Adam's sin in the Garden, because death was part of the curse God placed on man for his sin.
One cannot harmonize the literal Genesis account with Evolution and still retain a need for God, i.e., one cannot dis-believe what Jesus believed and still call ones self a "Christian".
As far as Evolution being a 'science', all it has to do is propose a falsifiable hypothesis which can be used as a test. (Defacto experiments or trivial extrapolations need not apply.) If the most rapid evolutionary model is correct, then it should take no more than 5 to 50,000 years to determine the outcome.
mmmm... maybe the Egyptian Pyramids are a long term experiment testing the hypothesis that men will evolve into gods? After 3,500 years we can say that such is not the case. Maybe we need to let the experiment percolate a little longer. Our egos are god size, we only need to allow our abilities to catch up. In fact, not only can man NOT predict how the Universe will die, he can not reliably predict how much rain I will receive at my house between the hours of 8 and 10 AM next Friday morning.
"Intelligent Design violates the principle known as "Occam's Razor", which states that, given two plausible explanations for one phenomenon, the most simple explanation is the correct one. "
I was under the impression that Occam's Razor was a general rule of thumb rather than a proven principle.
"Therefore, I prefer the naturalistic version. In my experience, people who uphold the "Intelligent Design" theory are only using it to justify their own views of the world... as well as their own prejudices [nothing personal here]."
You prefer something based on a general rule of thumb and your own opinion,then go on to state these people are prejudiced? How is it not personal?
I have prejudices and beliefs...don't you?
--"It's Bradford Company, slash your last name, dot your first name"
> Yes, so-called "Intelligent Design" is inherently a religious concept. So what? How does that invalidate it? The existence of God cannot be disproven scientifically. As long as something cannot be disproven, it is a valid theory.
The fact that it can't be disproven shows its worthlessness as a theory. There is no conceivable observation that isn't compatible with 'goddidit', which makes 'goddidit' completely useless as an explanation for anything.
[Snip fantasia on Genesis I]
> For having been written thousands of years ago by a man (Moses) who knew nothing about science, it seems pretty close to me.
Regardless who wrote it and when, it sounds pretty wrong to me.
> I understand why some people refuse to believe in a God. It takes a very open mind to believe in something you have no evidence of.
Alas, it takes an open mind to believe in things we do have evidence of, such as the big bang and biological evolution.
And if you're so keen on believing stuff without any supporting evidence, why don't you believe in all the other gods and unicorns that people have professed throughout the ages? You're merely engaging in special pleading.
> Eliminating Intelligent Design, or whatever you want to call it, from school curriculum amounts to nothing more than censorship, just like eliminating evolution.
No, omitting ID is just like omitting other pseudosciences based on bad arguments.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> The Apostle Paul said that 'through Adam sin and death came into the world'. If that is not true then none of it is true. Death, of either men or dinasours cannot have occured before Adam's sin in the Garden, because death was part of the curse God placed on man for his sin.
Which is why we keep hearing biblical literalists making idiotic claims about T.rex eating rutabagas before Adam bit the apple.
BTW, what you quote is what Paul said, but it's not what Genesis says. The curses given verbatim in Genesis clearly apply to serpents and humans. There isn't the slightest suggestion that carnivores didn't eat meat before then.
> As far as Evolution being a 'science', all it has to do is propose a falsifiable hypothesis which can be used as a test.
The entire science of genetics has been over a century of continuous tests of the theory of evolution. Remember that when Darwin published, Mendel still hadn't. The entire history of biological science since 1859 has been a history of validating the theory of evolution.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
What does the word "omnivident" mean?
My guess is that the book is a hyped up discussion of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy probe. This probe looked at minor fluctuations in the cosimc microwave background (much like COBE but with far better resolution).
The probe provided some really interesting data which has ended up posing far more questions than it answers (always the best type of experiment!). The data show that if the Big Bang model is correct that the Universe will end in heat death i.e. there will be no big crunch.
However it also shows that only ~5% of the Universes matter is "baryonic" i.e. what you would call "normal" matter. About ~20% is non-baryoninc matter and a whopping ~75% is dark energy. Currently the physics that we know about cannot account for most of the non-baryonic dark matter let alone the "dark energy". So to say that we know how the Universe is going to end when we only understand about 5% of what it actually is shows that the statement is clearly pure hype.
However this is also the reason that science is fun: we have a lot more of the Universe to understand. Either there is a lot of new fundamental physics out there for us to find or the Big Bang model predictions of the energy content are wrong. It's just best to wait until we do understand it before we make predictions.
I should add that prejudices and beliefs have no place in scientific discussion.
--"It's Bradford Company, slash your last name, dot your first name"
Here's how I look at the whole thing: There are too many finely-balanced things happening in the universe that coincide to allow complex systems to exist. In my opinion, saying that these phenomena are all just coincidences is too much of a stretch. I believe that someone had a direct role in their inception. This idea, while hard to comprehend, is a lot more believable to me than the idea that mankind simply "happened" over time, with monkeys acting as source material. It's totally possible for species to evolve, but I defy anyone to explain to me how one species ever evolves into a completely different species.
Assuming that I'm right, and some intelligent entity did create the universe, it's pretty obvious that this entity is far beyond us in every way. "God" would be a pretty good name for this entity. Someone at his level probably knows a heck of a lot more than any of us how things work, science or not. A bunch of scientists digging up monkey skulls and saying stuff like "I don't know how much ID has going for it these days" seem, to me, relatively transient and irrelevant.
I agree, ID is not science. So what? It's what I choose to believe, and so far no one has offered any convincing proof otherwise. Having answered that question for myself, I can move on to other things.
Suppose I'm wrong. I shuffle off this mortal coil someday, go to the "afterlife" (whatever that is), and find a bronze plaque hanging on a post that says "This is the end of the road. Man sprang from toads, and it was all just a big accident. Thank you, drive through." Does it really matter?
Now, suppose I'm right... The Bible talks about a time when everyone answers to God for what they've done. If that's true, and you're standing there then saying , "Well, em, I, uh, was one of those that said you didn't exist, and that the whole universe was just an accident. Sorry about that" and I'm over on the other side of the ditch saying "Sucks to be you!"(in so many words, I probably won't actually say "sucks") Does that matter?
Some say that man invented God to serve as an explanation for the unexplainable. I say that man uses science to invent things to try and explain God away. This allows some the temporary comfort of thinking they don't ultimately have to answer to someone for the things they do.
"Scientists...now know how the universe will end and are on the brink of understanding its beginning. Their findings will be among the greatest triumphs of science, even towering above the deciphering of the human genome."
The recent discoveries always seem to add many questions. I seem to hear astronomers saying that they are rethinking their theories. In fact is not your proposed model one of those "rethinkings"? What makes you think that we have it now figured out?
I'm sure you're post will attract a lot of flames, and I'll try not to add to the heat too much. As a former proponent of Intelligent Design, I do have some comments, which I hope you'll take in the spirit they are intended.
This isn't quite true...if something cannot be disproven, it is an empty theory. The principle of falsifiability is a cornerstone of modern scientific understanding. If you cannot devise a way to disprove a statement, that statement can be said to actually have no content, because it cannot add to your understanding of the world around us. It may influence your perception of it, which is fine - perceive it however suits you best - but it cannot be said to contain information.
Evolutionary theories (of various types) actually do show (as much as science purports to "show" anything) that God is unneccessary. What it does not claim is that God does not exist, or did not use evolutionary methods in creation. Unfalsifiable claims can be added to any scientific theory, without adding or detracting anything from it. Adding a God hypothesis to a scientific theory does not add any information to the theory. It is merely a statement of perception about that theory.
I disagree strongly with the statment that "[e]liminating Intelligent Design, or whatever you want to call it, from school curriculum amounts to nothing more than censorship, just like eliminating evolution", except perhaps in comparitive religion courses. Intellegent Design is a method for believers to integrate scientific knowledge into their faith. Teaching ID in school is tantamount to teaching faith, in that it does not teach you anything more about evolutionary theories, only how a certain religion understands and deals with the introduction of new scientific knowledge.
On a personal note, I went from belief in a literal translation of the bible, to science/faith integration tools like ID to a rather reactionary atheism, to agnosticism, where I now stand. I take that to mean that I cannot state anything about God (or any faith system) in such a way that it increases my knowledge of the world, and that therefore all such statements are empty.
Schools should teach reasoning, scientific method, and what knowledge we have gained from those processes. The public education system should not teach as part of a scientific curriculum methods that religions use to integrate scientific knowledge into their belief structure.
This is the voice of World Control. I bring you Peace.
> > There is NO NEED for intelligent design.
> On the contrary: if there was no need for the idea of intelligent design (note that I didn't call it a theory), nobody would've come up with it.
Quite so... but the need is political rather than scientific.
The need is the fundamentalist requirement that their kids not grow up believing in "evil"ution. But creationism won't pass muster in the US court system, so they need a secularized creationism that can.
I've seen a
> If you want to believe in ID, great; just please don't call it science.
Right-o.
> ID is a God Of The Gaps argument. We don't understand how the finely-balanced nature of the cosmos is possible, therefore God must have done it... well, what happens if/when we discover there's a natural phenomenon behind it?
We help God pack his bags and move him to a smaller, remoter gap.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> The truth is, there are significant problems with Evolution as it is currently reported.
Name three.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
And then one has to look at the true cost of science. What human good do these big theories give us? Einstein's work gave us the nuclear weapon which then gave us the nuclear destruction of two human cities, the cold war, giant nuclear arsenals, and our current insane levels of military spending focusing on using science to come up with new super weapons, all capable of vast devastation.
In the words of Jacques Cousteau:
Science has given us global warming, global pollution, global eco-system destruction and global overpopulation, all reading to the death of our planet. 3 billion years of nature down the drain so we can feed the ego and arrogance of scientists who, as less then mere motes in the universe, claim to understand it. The hubris is stunning and overwhelming.
News at 11, "The whole universe revolves around human science". 70 sextillion stars, 10 times as many stars as grains of sand on our world, so *incredibly* much that is unknown, and yet scientific arrogance trumps it all.
It is so very clear that science will cause the human participation in the universe to come to an end. Which perhaps is a good thing. If we, as living creatures, cannot take care of our own home and planet, it is good we don't spread to other worlds, killing them as well.
Humanity was given a priceless gift, one of the most beautiful creations in all the universe, an entire planet with a diversity of live. Instead of taking care of this gift and cherishing it, we have trampled it, pissed on it, and squandered it.
Time enough for science and scientists. The planet needs a new type of scientist -- one with a wise and caring heart -- if we wish to even lay claim to the word 'hope'.
Has any research ever focussed on the fact that the Universe was never created(began) nor will it End ??
(Only change it's form like it always had from infinite time....)
Isn't it short sighted to just start the research with the preconceived notion of a beginning and end ??
this equation :
G_{\mu\nu}=T_{\mu\nu} ?
thanks.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
The current thinking on the end of the universe is one of infinite expansion, yeilding a universe of isolated particles of very low energy.
However, our current understandings of the beginnings of the universe include the possiblities of phase-state changes in which the current three forces "condense" out of a single unified force - the behaviors of the three forces look different only at the current "low" temperatures.
What is to say that, as the universe expands and cools that new behaviors, visible only at 10E50 meter distances, won't create behaviors that would lead to the formation of life anew - albeit life at a time and distance scale we cannot conceive of?
I am reminded of Dr. Forward's "Dragon's Egg" novels, in which creatures who evolved on the surface of a neutron star encounter humans - Cheela's biology is based on color-charge (strong force) much as ours is based on electric charge.
To the Cheela, we are but slow-moving whisps of smoke.
Take that to the extreme - perhaps in the early part of the universe (10E-50 second) there were physics that allowed life to exist - to them we would be vast empty spaces of isolated particles. Perhaps the end of the universe is but a new beginning?
(Note: this is a SERIOUSLY un-scientific hypothesis as it is completely un-falsifiable.)
www.eFax.com are spammers
Like, what made the big bang happen?
God?
Oh, who made God?
SuperGod?
Who made SuperGod?
SuperDuperGod?
Who made SuperDuperGod?
Meanwhile, 500 billion light years away, another universe is big banging its way in our own universe but past the edge of our own big bang. Aliens from that universe will never see us and we will never see them, even though we are arranged in a convenient diagnonal, if viewed 20 trillion light years from above.
This is my sig.
This is the question that knocks around my head when I am feeling particularly inquisitive. It seems that any theory of existence gets to a point where you have to posit the creation of something (an atom, a particle, a strange something or other) from nothing. Given that, why is there anything at all to have a history of to begin with. Why isn't it all nothingness?
Them: The world's too complex, therefore God created it.
... you just have to have faith!
Me: Okay, so then what created God?
Them: Nothing CREATED God, he just exists! He always has and always will!
Me: Why is it okay to believe that God "just exists" and wasn't created by anything, but not okay to believe the same thing about the universe?
Them:
Well... how?
> Heres a riddle for your evolutionist mind though: Explain how rapidly flying material from the supposed big bang somehow got together to form stars and planets and the like.
You show your ignorance of big-bang theory. BBT is about space expanding, not about stuff flying around after an explosion.
> Don't forget that at the point of the big bang there were no planets or stars to create gravity.
Ah, you're ignorant of much more basic issues than the BBT.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You state that:
"Scientists...now know how the universe will end and are on the brink of understanding its beginning."
If we are truly on the brink of undertanding the beginning of the Universe then this would also entail understanding what caused the Big Bang. What are the candidate theories as to the cause and how can we experimentally validate them? If we constrain our notion of the Universe to be post-Big Bang then are you claiming that we are on the brink of truly understanding physics at the Planck scale (~10^-41 s post Big Bang)? If so what is your justification for this?
How can you feel comfortable making this kind of statement when there are so many things (missing mass, quasars, etc) that are not fully explained by current theory?
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
You write that your book will give the scientific picture of the beginning and end of the universe. I have recently read Halton Arp's "Seeing Red: Quasars, Cosmology and Academic Science." Arp offers a devastating critique not only of the currently reigning theory of cosmology, including theories about its beginnings and its future, but backs up his critique with a wealth of images and calculations.
My question is this: what can you offer in the way of a scholarly critique of Arp's evidence. As you likely know, Arp has images and calculations making it abundantly clear that the redshifts used to determine the age and expansion of the universe are not, in fact, due to receding velocities.The implications for cosmology are profound. In addition, Arp calculates the statistical probabilities (typically 1 in thousands to millions) that the various findings he uses to support his theory are due to chance ("chance occurrence" being the standard reason given for rejecting Arp's articles for publication).
Arp's book is technical and I do not pretend to accurately summarize his extended arguments here. I assume you are aware of his work.
I appreciate any thoughts you have about these issues.
"something cannot come from nothing" ?
Wanna bet ? Our whole universe is a big free lunch. It came out of nothing !
All the evidence is consistent with my theory that the entire universe is a big giant peep inside a 10-dimensional microwave oven. See peepresearch.org if you doubt. This is the only theory that can explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. The unavoidable conclusion is that our universe will end in an explosion of hot marshmallow goop.
John Horgan, in his book "The End of Science", claimed that we as a race actually do not have the capacity to discover anything more substantial.
Quoting him -
" Scientists will continue making incremental advances, but they will never achieve their most ambitious goals, such as understanding the origin of the Universe, of life and of human conciousness. As science advances, it imposes limits on its own power. Relativity theory prohibits faster than light travel. Heisenberg's principle and chaos theory constrain our predictive capabilities."
What is your response to this?
I have heard stuff like this before in wrttings by Einstein, Steven Hawking, Leon Lederman and others who, in their hubris, assert that humankind is on the "brink" of having a final physical theory of everything. Yet fundemental understanding seems to receed.
The discovery of dark matter in the last decade is a good example. Suddenly a high percentage of the universe is made up of matter we currently can't sense and for which there is no theoretical understanding. And now there is an unknown fifth physical (repulsive) force that seems to overwhelm gravity at cosmic distances.
Do you think there is a bottom of the barrel for physical theory?
an ill wind that blows no good
The theory of gravity is only a theory.
Think about that the next time you drop a hammer on your toe.
You brought up a good point when you mentioned the misunderstanding of the terminology:
to the non-scientist, a "theory" is a hypothesis, or a guess, that needs to be proven "true."
To the scientist, a "theory" is a working mathematical/logical model that is used to predict a result given a particular set of conditions. A theory gains credibility by accurately predicting results, and this is done via testing. A theory is never actually "proven" true. If it works well, you keep it. Or you tweak it to make it better. Or you replace it with something that is even better at predicting results.
Non-scientists think that theories somehow become laws (like a Bill becomes a Law!) when they are two different things. I mean, we already have laws of gravity, but we don't have a complete theory of gravity yet!
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
I'm start with the question, then my comment:
All of this theoretical stuff is great, but what practical applications does knowing how the universe will begin and end have? What fantastic new products will I be able to purchase because we know the state of the universe to within a quadrillionth of a second after the Big Bang? What disease does knowing the fate of it all cure? It may sound extremely cynical to ask this question, but it's quite obvious to me that a large part of the general public (the majority I would be sold bold as to say) thinks along these lines, not about the intangible benefits that are usually sited as the reason for the continued drive to understand the universe.
That's my question, now my comments...
Let me make clear that I am what you could quite properly term a "science freak". I can't get enough of theoretical mussings. I should also point out that as someone that is woefully poor at high mathematics, I deal with 99.9999% of it on a purely conceptual basis. I think this is relevant because that's the only way most members of the general public CAN deal with topics such as the birth and death of the universe. We simply don't have the mathematical tools to deal with it otherwise.
It always amazes me when people I know AREN'T amazed by some of the discoveries being made today. I'm shocked when they aren't as much in awe of the latest theories as I am. There's a certain degree of "I just don't get it, so it doesn't thrill me" to be sure. More of it I believe however is simply not seeing the bigger picture.
Striving to understand our surrounderings is possibly the single most important defining characteristic of the human race as a whole. It's also of course one of the basic foundations on which the definition of self-awareness is based.
So when I see the majority of the human race, or at best a substantial portion of it, seemingly forget this basic strive to want to understand, it makes me very sad.
I'm proud to say that I am raising my children to be inquisitive and to always want answers to progressively more difficult questions. This is something that the Slashdot community, as a subset of the open-source/hacker community, idealizes. It's also one of the primary reasons I keep coming back here, even if I find myself disagreeing with a large portion of what is posted here. Sparking thought and debate in each other is a gift we shouldn't ever overlook.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
That's hand-waving in the extreme. If it were true then one would be hard pressed to explain why the 100 year anniversary meeting in Denver, CO., in 1958, of Biologists had has its theme the question of the absence of proof, (i.e. fossile evidence - which Darwin and other True Believers were sure was only a few years and a few digs away), the absence of which Dawkin's called {"Evolution's dirty little secret". Or why Gould and others were pressed to develop "Punctuated Equilibrium", an alternative to the Darwinian theory of gradualism... etc., etc., ect.,,
If the universe was non-existant before the "Big Bang" occured, then what are the current thoughts regarding what type of matter existed before it occured. Being that a force of energy broke up this object of great mass down to sub-atomic levels it does not discount the existance of the universe as the atomic level seems to have existed for this to have occured. All the thoery does in my mind is disprove allot of theology based theories. What are your thoughts on this aspect of the theory?
We're not god. Not only are we human but we are sometimes forced to become the devil himself. We're not god
Perhaps this part of Darwin's book will be instructive OOGG.
Darwin stated that the fossil record, incomplete and meager as it was at the time, would eventually substantiate his theory by showing the gradual progression of creatures and intermediate forms. It is now evident due to the overwhelming preponderance of fossil evidence that has been found and cataloged, that the fossil record is a dismal failure in this role of corroborating evidence.
In fact, punctuated equilibrium is a theorist's patch designed specifically to cover this gaping hole in Darwin's evidence trail.
Furthermore, this is exactly the kind of progresion/re-examination that the grandparent poster is talking about.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
You are, of course, describing the anthropic principle here.
Don't you think that it's a little ironic that you're rejecting the possibility of intelligent design out of hand while at the same time proposing an equally unprovable and extravagant theory requiring an infinite number of universes to "pop in and out of existence" until the proper conditions for life are met?
Evolution and the Big Bang are quite well established scientifically, but believing in something as bizarre as the anthropic principle takes just as much faith as believing that the universe was created by an intelligent being.
Intellegent Design is a method for believers to integrate scientific knowledge into their faith.
Actually, "Intelligent Design" is a method for believers to delude themselves about the inherent contradiction between scientific discovery and their own preconceptions and thought processes. It does not result in believers acquiring *any* scientific knowledge, so how could any "integration" take place? It rather results in believers acquiring more "faith-based" information.
There is nothing inherently wrong with "faith-based" information, except when believers confuse it with scientific knowledge, which it is not.
1. The fact that major transformative jumps interspecies are always clarified with a radiation exposure claim. 2. No explanation of polystrait trees in the timeline. 3. DNA evidence suggesting that our "link" to neanderthals isn't suggestive. 4. Fossil evidence showing human fossils among fossil remains that we were not supposed to have co-existed with. There's much more. JAV
I think what he is trying to say is this:
No, we can't prove or disprove that any god exists. However, there are still some pretty deep questions left to answer whether you believe in a god or not. Why does anything exist at all? Think about it! Why does matter even exist? Why does reality even exist? If we can name some sort of event that happened, then why did that event exist?
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
-Robert Frost
I don't know who said this:
"Yes, so-called 'Intelligent Design' is inherently a religious concept. So what? How does that invalidate it? The existence of God cannot be disproven scientifically. As long as something cannot be disproven, it is a valid theory."
Reread your debate theory; assumption is negative. For any affirmative statement, until you're proven right, it's assumed you're wrong. Ergo, until you CAN prove some sort of god exists, logic demands you assume there isn't one... not the other way around.
And, yes, creationism is science. It just isn't something most people can understand. After all, we're not gods. Now, the proof of the existence of god can be achieved scientifically, but is really more of a philosophical topic.
Nice to know you think that we shouldn't include the beginning of the world in science. After all, it's kinda hard to prove that evolution or creationism or a big bang or a big crap or what-have-you happened without time-travel. Likewise, it is impossible to disprove.
Wrong. There's much more to scientific measurement than "go and see".
Many of these theories-- evolution, the big bang, etc.-- make testable predictions. They are either predictions of the results of experiments, or of things we will observe. By making the predicted observations, we can test those thoeries.
-Rob
I would say it takes an open mind to attempt to prove or disprove God's existence and take the logical path you determine. It takes a closed mind to either believe what you were raised to believe or what everyone says is right. Even if I accept all scientific theory, that's pretty closed minded when I never bother to check it for shit.
t ml. It doesn't argue for or against creationism or any religions.
If you want an explanation for why a Godlike being of some sort exists, try this: http://www2.gvsu.edu/~abreschm/essays/godexists.h
So I guess all those field biologists who are studying any number of creatures in fossil form are publishing all those journal articles and attending all those conferences and talking about, what, nothing?
The fossil record is inherently incomplete and meager, compared to the vast quantity of life that has existed. But look at just the human fossil record alone. There's plenty of human evolution depicted there. Including transistional forms. Next?
That's only if you are a literalist. There is plenty of room to have faith in God and still believe some translations have been fucked up. I'd say the King James Version is a damn good reason to start with such a belief.
i sts.html a look. That's a somewhat biased essay attempting prove the existence of some Godlike being of an unknown type.
Also, you can perfectly well need a god and still have evolution give href="http://www2.gvsu.edu/~abreschm/essays/godex
Also, as far as falsifiable, evolution is damn close to impossible to falsify either. All you can prove is that We Can't Do It, not that it can't happen. Well, not until a couple thousand years from now. Until then, it's just a vaguely backed theory
And, yes, I did say vaguely. The backing for evolution is weaker than for most theories. It has many good points and good ideas, but cannot be tested. Many theories are proven false even after being used successfully on many occasions.
Just out of curiosity, is evolution falsifiable? In most of the discussions I've seen between people challenging the orthodoxy of the day (evolution), when sticky points are made, people fall back and say, "Well, something like this *must* have happened, so the details will be worked out eventually." Which sounds suspiciously like the young-earthers who say, "Well, we know that creation happened this way, so all the sticky details will be worked out eventually."
Supposing, just for the sake of argument, that the "young earth creation" hypothesis (which is not the only creationist theory out there) were true. What kind of evidence would it take to convince the scientific establishment that the earth really was created 10,000 years ago by an intelligent being?
Or alternately, suppose that one of the "older earth" creationist theories were true: the earth really is as old as geologists say it is, and what we see as punctuated equilibria was really God supernaturally introducing new species at different points in time. What kind of evidence would it take to convince you that such a theory is true?
The problem is that people automatically associate the word "science" with "proven to be true"; and scientists don't tend to discourage that assessment. But it should be obvious that completely neglecting certain hypotheses only because they're not "scientifically useful", or defining science in a way that assumes from the outset no interaction between the material and the physical world, means that it's possible for "science" to diverge greatly from the truth.
If every high school science class started with the caveat, "Science is an attempt to explain the world in terms of exclusively physical phenomena. This means that if there really is a spiritual world, many of its conclusions may be completely wrong", I would have no trouble with teaching only Evolution in science class.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.
Evolution, the Big Bang, and those other theories have testable predictions. However, The Big Bang, Evolution, and all that are not testable as theories For the Beginning of the World. Intelligent Design is equally testable for how the world began. Evolution has other uses as a theory, but we cannot well theorize about how the world began.
On a side not, and not meant as an important point, I Can test if God created the world. If I die, I will know, one way or another.
true but either way, there is no way to know.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Well, be sure to publish your results in a peer-reviewed journal.
The issue with forcing evolution as a theory for the beginning of the world in classrooms is not only that it conflicts with many theologies, but also that it is impossible to prove. We cannot prove who the world began. We can prove how it is and how it will continue, and even how it has been for a while.
Evolution is very useful as a theory for the current world. The issue many Christian teachers have with it is that, in schools, it is taught as the way in which the world Did begin, even though it has less evidence than any other theory we readily accept.
Evolution is a useful theory which should be taught as such. That is all.
Because, frankly, a God of the Gaps model is scientifically useless. In such a model, the unknown = god. Therefore, scientific investigation should be discouraged, as it diminishes the glory of god or of the gods, and consequently diminishes the power of the priestly caste over the rest of society.
In the scientific worldview. the unknown = the unknown. A scientist does not note the passage of the sun over the horizon, and pray for its return. He or she instead develops a scientific model which correlates the lengths of the day and of the night with the time of year. Such a model might diminish the role of some facet of the divine, but it is considerably more useful to the rest of society.
It may be discomforting to know that some observations cannot be fully explained by current scientific theories, but the proper response to such discomfort should be to continue ones investigations (preferably in a systematic manner) so as to resolve these niggling problems, rather than to retreat to some silly God.
It is particularly irritating that this nonsense is being promulgated in "science" classes. The goal of such classes should be to teach students how to investigate the unknown. not to shy from it.
A few quick replies... overall, I'd urge you to try moving towards the attitude of the parent post to yours a bit more. I'm personally an atheist, but I'm very comfortable dealing with "believers" who know what it is they're choosing, and how it relates to science.
I defy anyone to explain to me how one species ever evolves into a completely different species.
What do you mean by "completely different species"? All it means when a different species appears is that members of the new group are different enough that they can't reproduce with the original species anymore. We still have something like 98% of our DNA exactly like that of a chimp... but our reproductive details are different enough that we can't produce a natural hybrid. It's silly to say we're completely different.
Now, suppose I'm right... The Bible talks about a time when everyone answers to God for what they've done.
Where do you fit in the atheist who volunteers for public services, gives to charities, etc.? There are plenty of people out there who don't believe in God but who follow the same ethical rules as you do, for different reasons.
And where do you fit in people who lived before monotheistic religions were even an option? Are they all still in hell? Poor suckers.
Just my thoughts on this... I think you'll find that the average atheist didn't choose that path to "permit" them to break the rules. For me, at least, all of the human religions that I know about just seem... well, really unlikely. The only idea that comes close is the suggestion that there's some force that started the whole ball rolling... but we know nothing about it, and praying to it or worshipping it as about as useful as praying to my own foot.
I'd probably sleep better if I believed that I would move on to some kind of pleasant afterlife after I die, but I'd rather live my life based on the best assumptions I can come up with -- not the most comfortable ones.
There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
You know, I've been planning just that, but the post-mortem journals just aren't up to snuff
(Meant in no seriousness)
Obviously evolution must occur, as there are no hominid remains over 10 million years old, yet there are the remains of many simpler creatures. No remains of these creatures, in turn, can be found over 3 billion years ago, while fossil remains of bacteria can be found.
He said, NOT falsifiable...not can be proven.
It is conceivable that current theories of cosmology or evolution CAN be disproven, perhaps by a single observation. They therefore fall withing the realm of the natural sciences.
Paraphrase from Einstein: "No amount of observation can prove me right. A single observation can prove me wrong."
But even then they are abusing the term theory. From Hyperdictionary again: theory - 1. [n] a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
2 [n] a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"
3 [n] a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
As we can see, their use of the term fits into none of those categories. I propose a different term: wild freakin' guess. That matches the evidence advanced so far.
Ok... we won't eliminate intelligent design from school curriculum. Christians want christian ideals added to school curriculum, but to be fair, we better add in the ideals of every other religion out there. So we'll start teaching the kiddies 1000 different versions of how the earth and life were created (there is no more evidence proving christianity than any other religion that has popped up in the last few thousand years) Then they can choose 1 of 1000 different versions of the test to correspond to the version they like best. Good plan.
For having been written thousands of years ago by a man (Moses) who knew nothing about science, it seems pretty close to me. There's no evidence to support that the bible (Old Testament) was written by Moses, let alone a single person. Much research suggests that there are 3-4 authors of the OT and an editor or two along the way.
Yup I'm not in the mood for flaming either, but there's a couple things I gotta point out.
"As long as something cannot be disproven, it is a valid theory." That is an absolutely incorrect statement. A theory is only valid if it is falsifiable. Evolution is a valid theory because there are tests to disprove its hypotheses. Intelligent Design, organized religion, are not valid theories because in the end, proponents can fall back on faith, which I can't capture in a beaker and measure. There is no way that you can disprove that a pink elephant with an eyepatch created the universe, just as there is no way that I can disprove that a single God created it.
BTW, does Intelligent Design factor in Shinto or Hindu beliefs into the "Grand Organizer's" schemes? If so, would Kansas and Ohio still be willing to teach it?
It also takes an open mind to believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, but we showed that there were made up (created only to explain the loss of teeth and the fun of Christmas to children)? Should we dedicate chapters in our schoolbooks to studying them?
If you are going to make statements on scientific theory, please revisit the Scientific Method that was taught in 5th grade (unless your school skipped it to teach about Jonah and the Whale).
And finally, Intelligent Design has a religious bent. We were founded on the separation of church and state. How can you justify teaching religiously influenced material in a publicly-funded school?
One: My post has a prerequisite requirement of knowledge of the theory of punctuated equilibrium. The theory was designed as a rebuttal to the actual evidence contained in the fossil record. The fossil record evidence shows that the oldest specimen of a particular species and the youngest specimen are almost indistinguishable in appearance and composition. Since these creatures are sometimes millions of years different in age this poses quite a quandry for the gradual evolutionists.
Punctuated equilibrium states that there are short periods of intense evolution. Thus, because of the shortened sampling time, the fact that there are no intermediate forms is not a problem for the theory, and it furthermore explains why creatures appear to be unchanged over millions of years and then in the next strata there are radically differnt organisms that seem to have no precursor forms.
Two: The number of bones collected worldwide that are used to substantiate the evolutionary trail of mankind will fit on a standard sized billiard table with space to spare. Look it up.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Why do we need a religion to embrace evolution? Evolution is not a proof or a proven theory. What happens if later we find a more viable theory, say that our planet was populated by our ancestors from a dying planet? Will our religion have to change once again to embrace that? Religion that embraces everything is not religion. It's therapy. :)
JAV
> > The entire science of genetics has been over a century of continuous tests of the theory of evolution. Remember that when Darwin published, Mendel still hadn't. The entire history of biological science since 1859 has been a history of validating the theory of evolution.
> That's hand-waving in the extreme. If it were true then one would be hard pressed to explain why the 100 year anniversary meeting in Denver, CO., in 1958, of Biologists had has its theme the question of the absence of proof
I wonder if you could provide some more information about this meeting; I can't seem to find anything about it on Google.
Was it a regular scientific conference? If so, which conference was it and what are the title and publisher of the proceedings, in case we want to see what the conference was about without having it filtered through a creationist mind.
Or if it wasn't a regular scientific conference, what was it, who organized it, who underwrote it, and what kind of people attended? And what exactly did the conference announcement say about its theme?
Thanks.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"Guessing" at the beginning and end of the universe is not nearly as important as the human genome because YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THE KNOWLEDGE.
We could put off trying to learn that particular piece of info for the next hundred years and not be any worse off. Whereas there are a lot of things it would be very advantageous to know right now.
Not to mention the fact that the size of the universe seems to double every time somebody decides his "publish or perish" syndrome needs treatment.
Pardon me for being cynical but these guys haven't proven a goddam thing - and I don't even need to know anything about their science to make that statement. I just need to know human nature.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
How do you know we know nothing about it?
A man's mind prepares his way. But the Lord directs his steps.
Its like me saying, "Hey, there's a purple guy that follows me around and tells me to kill people." There is no scientific way to prove that he isn't really there.
Biologosts are referring to genus when they make that reference.
In other words, you are not going to find a platypus in the pre-cambrian era. You are not going to find an amoeba before bacteria, you will not find a mammal before reptiles, etc.
As to blind cave fish, they are just as compl9icated as their sighted brethern genetically. The area of the brain that is normally used for sight has been enhanced to pick up vibration and scent. They are every bit as complex. Of course, if you found one of these before say diatoms in the sediment layers, it would definitely make history. It has never happened, and likely never will (unless some Jesus-freak plants it).
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
So if you observe a window breaking and a kid running away, you could say:
Your point is both funny and pertinent. I wish I had some mod points for you.
> > Plenty of evidence suggests that organized religion was intentionally created as a form of mass control of the populace.
> Just for my edification, care to deliver any such evidence or summaries of such evidence? That's a very bold statement and while I am disinclined to disagree, I want to know what this is based on.
Don't know about originally, but it apparently continues to this day. Leo Strauss, godfather of the neocon movement, reportedly advocated religion as a means of controlling the masses, with only an insider clique knowing that it was all bunkum. (Some people think this is what the leading advocates of intelligent design are up to, since the Discovery Institute is apparently a branch of the neocon Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, or whatever they call it now.)
IIRC, Plato said exactly the same thing. Napoleon supposedly took approximately the same position; the PBS series about him paraphrased him as saying "Religion is great stuff for controlling the masses."
When added to the modern $SUEMEIFINAMEIT scam masquerading as religion, it's hard to avoid a conclusion that religions have been tools for manipulation throughout history. That's not to say that no one ever took religion seriously, but rather that lots have seen it as a tool for exploitation.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Hello Charles,
Everytime I read the term "theory of everything", I can't help but wonder, how can we ever hope to understand how a universe can arise, unless we invoke some sort of infinite regression somewhere, like postulating "parent" universes in a hierarchical multiverse. Can we sidestep the issue of how such a multiverse came to be 'simply' by defining its lifespan to be infinity and still claim that we have a TOE ?
In other words, if we found all the laws of the universe, wouldn't there remain the question of how these laws came to be ? Of course, some other laws could explain how they arose, but then where did these come from ?
Aren't such infinite regressions problematic for claims of TOEs ?
- lone, dfx
> Here's how I look at the whole thing: There are too many finely-balanced things happening in the universe that coincide to allow complex systems to exist. In my opinion, saying that these phenomena are all just coincidences is too much of a stretch.
How can you possibly say that without knowing what caused them to fall out the way they did? Do you have the faintest idea what the odds are, or even what the range of possibilities was?
> I believe that someone had a direct role in their inception.
That's a major non sequitur, even if you're right about your probability guess. How come it couldn't be some boring mechanism rather than "someone"?
> This idea, while hard to comprehend
No, it's not at all hard to comprehend. Rather, it's one of Mencken's famouse "simple, neat, and wrong" answers to the problem.
> is a lot more believable to me than the idea that mankind simply "happened" over time
Curiosly enough, scientists don't believe that's what happened either.
> I defy anyone to explain to me how one species ever evolves into a completely different species.
Where's the mystery? A population of some species splits into two populations that no longer interbreed, say as a result of migration and geographic isolation, and then changes accumulate until they're different enough to be reckoned separate species. No one seems to have a problem with that simple notion unless it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
> Assuming that I'm right, and some intelligent entity did create the universe, it's pretty obvious that this entity is far beyond us in every way. "God" would be a pretty good name for this entity.
Even if it were a mindless entity, or an evil one?
> A bunch of scientists digging up monkey skulls and saying stuff like "I don't know how much ID has going for it these days" seem, to me, relatively transient and irrelevant.
It may surprise you that scientists don't reject ID for the same facile reasons that creationists reject scientists. Scientists reject ID because it's an armchair argument that incorporates lots of non sequiturs and other logical fallacies. End of story, so far as science is concerned.
Of course, ID is welcome to get their act together and try again. Unfortunately they're more interested in lobbying school boards than they are in researching ID.
> Suppose I'm wrong. I shuffle off this mortal coil someday, go to the "afterlife" (whatever that is), and find a bronze plaque hanging on a post that says "This is the end of the road. Man sprang from toads, and it was all just a big accident. Thank you, drive through." Does it really matter?
> Now, suppose I'm right... The Bible talks about a time when everyone answers to God for what they've done. If that's true, and you're standing there then saying , "Well, em, I, uh, was one of those that said you didn't exist, and that the whole universe was just an accident. Sorry about that" and I'm over on the other side of the ditch saying "Sucks to be you!"(in so many words, I probably won't actually say "sucks") Does that matter?
There's Pascal's Wager again. Did you miss our trashing of it a couple of days ago?
> I say that man uses science to invent things to try and explain God away.
That's a really bizarre conclusion, given how many scientists believe in God.
Though I don't know why I should be surprised by bizarre claims from creationists.
> This allows some the temporary comfort of thinking they don't ultimately have to answer to someone for the things they do.
Just like Christianity allows some the temporary comfort of thinking they won't ultimately have to answer to Baal for their lives, right?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It's interesting that the link to Barnes & Noble was posted with Roblimos user ID, so that anyone actually buying the book is putting money in his pocket. Way to milk the bucks, Slashdot editors!!! Uhhh.. any concept of journalistic integrity floating around there???
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
For something to rise to the accepted level of theory, it must be based on scientific observations. It must have passed through the hypothesis stage of initial concept deliniation. It must be tested repeatedly, succeeding each time (or the initial hypothesis must be reworked). It has to pass peer review.
What is a hypothesis? A tentative suggestion to explain observed phenomena based on available evidence. A hypothesis leads to falsifiable experiments. As the body of these experiments builds, a hypothesis either grows toward a theory or is supplanted by a hypothesis that successfully explains the experimental data.
The whole of biological science has build up the evidence to support Darwin's Theory of Evolution (Variation, Competition, Offspring, Genetics, Natural Selection). And while there have been discussions about specifics of components (punctuated vs gradual), neither side disputes the underlying scientific theory. And all sides continue to build the body of scientific evidence to support it.
Trolls and ID'ers continue to abuse the language of science to confuse the issues and attempt to paint some sort of equivalence between their faith -based belief system and a rigorously objective scientific discipline.
For example, methods for restoring telomere length, reversing the effects of glucose binding, correcting genetic damage, and promoting the growth of new neurons.
How long do you think life can be extended by these and other methods? And to step briefly away from the science aspect, how do you think the results of this research will be offered to the public? Will it be available as part of the average health plan, or only for the uber-wealthy?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Does God exist?
So what? Intelligent design is NOT the only alternative to Darwinism, you know? Oh, you didn't? Well, perhaps becuause the scientific stablishment SILENCES all dissent? Perhaps because the new evidence is IGNORED? Perhaps becaause those real scientists who question, who come up with new evidence, who put old theories to new tests, are viciously HARASSED and if they don't shut up they are FIRED and BLACKLISTED?
There has been a lot of progress in understanding evolution. We have gone far beyond Saint Charles Darwin and the Apostles of the Holy Modern Synthesis. Unfortunately, the Science Inc., `scientific' stablishment, does not want to have their members careers threatened---they have too much invested in those theories (and myths!!!) to have to face progress. No siree. Those who question... are convinced that ``science is not the soil that will nurture our roots'' and---like myself---are labelled as ``cryptocreationists'' when we demand evidenc and proper scientific method.
Now, you don't like Intelligent Design? Me neither? And you know what? Darwinians *support* shitty things like ID and Creationism, since Darwinians block real science.
``L'imagination au povoir.''
Two suggests a likely alternative to One, but does not mandate it. Punctuated equilibrium does not "rebut" the fossil record, rather "explains." The fossil record is incomplete enough that it does not provide very tight constraints on theories, yet complete enough that it does reveal intermediate forms of some species.
Historical evolution does not have to be a one-size-fits-all approach. There is no particular reason why a successful organism cannot propagate relatively unchanged for a long period of time, while other organisms undergo rapid change as they take advantage of some newly opened niche.
Saying that Darwin is basically correct, compared to a theory of intelligent design is not the same as saying that Darwin is more correct than the modern elaboration of evolutionary theory. I, and I think OOGG as well, are not arguing that Darwin's theory was complete and gospel (how could it be when Darwin lacked the modern understanding of genetic inheritance), but that it was still a far more robust explanation than believers in "intelligent design" maintain.
Hi. My question: I've heard that the universe gets thinner as it expands. And the thinner it gets, the quicker it expands. Is this true? If so, will the universe eventually get so thin that its atoms smash in a quick flash, called "the thin flash"? In other words, will the universe end in an amazing subatomic nuclear explosion? Why, or why not?
I always read where a majority of the universe is "dark matter". But what exactly is "dark matter?
Scientific American sums it up better than I ever could:
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - A great article, written by the editor-in-chief of Scientific American, that goes point-by-point through creationist beliefs. My mother (who is religous) actually sent me the article because she thought cleared up so many muddy issues.
How can science have anything truly definitive to say about the distant future of the universe?
It seems to me that the action of life itself generates unpredictability, and that we likely have no more conception of what life will be like in 10 million years than a chimp does of us. Rather than talk about the distant future of the universe, how about this much simpler question:
What will the surface of the earth be like in one million years?
(If you don't think this question is simpler, then you are making assumptions about the scope of life's potential impact on the physical world.)
If you want to instead think of life as just another physical process, then the question boils down to:
Are the laws of the universe such that the future can be predicted (or at least broadly characterized)? Or like many cellular automata (e.g., Conway's Life), is the only way to predict the future to in effect run a simulation?
> Darwin stated that the fossil record, incomplete and meager as it was at the time, would eventually substantiate his theory by showing the gradual progression of creatures and intermediate forms. It is now evident due to the overwhelming preponderance of fossil evidence that has been found and cataloged, that the fossil record is a dismal failure in this role of corroborating evidence.
Funny, the people who actually study it think it is an overwhelming success. Look at the historical record of the bones in your middle ear. Look at the history of whale legs. You don't have to be a guru to grok this stuff; you just need to get your information from sources other than creationist propaganda sites.
BTW, the theory of evolution neither predicts nor requires that specimens of every species will be fossilized, let alone that they will be found and catalogued by a scientist. Creationists like to point out the gaps in the fossil record as if that were a problem for science, but completely ignore the masses of fossils that we do have, for which creation can give no better explanation than "God wanted it to look like stuff evolved".
Notice in passing that "God wanted it that way" is compatible with any conceivable observation. It's a completely useless way of trying to understand the universe.
At any rate, when you've got a better explanation than evolution for all the fossils we do have, let us hear about it. The fossils we don't have are a nuissance for reconstructing all the details of biological history, but they're not a problem for the theory of evolution.
> In fact, punctuated equilibrium is a theorist's patch designed specifically to cover this gaping hole in Darwin's evidence trail.
Punk-eek, like every other scientific theory, is an attempt to explain what we do see. Patterns in the fossil record demand an explanation, and punk-eek is a reasonable attempt to explain them.
And BTW, were you aware that people who work with genetic algorithms sometimes observe punk-eek in their non-biological work? It's an unsurprising and readily comprehensible phenomenon; no conspiracy theory required. Unless of course you're a creationist who has to fall back on slinging mud at scientific theories, to distract observers from the fact that you don't have any theory of your own at all.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It would be too charitable to say that intelligent design is wrong. As Pauli would say, it's not even wrong -- there isn't even a theory of intelligent design whose validity can be debated. All "intelligent design theory" consists of is a long list of things that somebody thinks didn't happen. It has no theory of what did happen.
You know, I flipped a coin 30 times the other day and came out with the following result: HTHHTTTHHTHHTHTTHHTHHTTTHHTHTT
Now I ask you: what is the likelihood of my getting exactly this sequence of heads and tails? And to think I got exactly this, without a single mistake! I can't believe my luck! Clearly the result of divine intervention!
(Message: Be careful trying to apply probability theory when the result is a priori known.)
Yes, evolution is falsifiable. For instance, it predicts a nested hierarchy of morphological and genetic structure. Such a nested hierarchy is observed. If it wasn't, evolution would have been falsified.
What would convince me that the Earth is 10,000 years old? A complete working replacement of virtually every science known to man, including astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, etc. etc. Not saying it could happen in principle, but I'm not holding my breath. The evidence that the Earth is older than 10,000 years is scientifically overwhelming; it would take nothing less than a complete revamp of all these fields to come up with a consistent scientific framework that could admit a young Earth.
As for the "God meddling at periodic intervals", it depends on how you constrain the meddling. Since God is omnipotent, he could in principle make any such meddling indistinguishable from natural evolution. But we might expect, for instance, that God could insert new species that are unquestionably genetically unrelated to any existing species, and thus don't fit properly into the rest of the hierarchy. If we saw species like that, then the God hypothesis would be more plausible.
ID is not the only way to address that question. (In fact, some would argue that ID is not even an answer -- what does saying "Goddidit" tell us, beyond what we already knew?)
There are a couple of alternative hypotheses. One is MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) which says that inertia changes just a little at large distances, just enough to produce that effect.
Another is this "plasma universe" thingy. The idea is that no, gravity is not the force holding together, say, spiral galaxies or galaxy clusters. These things are not in gravitational equalibrium, and these large scale structures you see are plasma fluctuations giving rise to things like galaxy spiral arms or galaxy clusters. These are large scale counterparts to the arc in a Jacob's Ladder science toy, and as such they are not stable gravitationally-bound structures requiring missing mass, they are evanescent structures that come and go as the plasma arcs around.
I asked some of my ECE department colleagues who work on plasma (magnetic-confinement fusion) if they heard about this plasma cosmology and if this was for real or if it was quack science, and they never heard of it.
Is this plasma universe thing quack science? If it is sincere, what are the holes in that theory? Any good references?
As I set my threshold to 5, I'm missing a lot of stuff, but as far as I can tell, you're all missing the point.
"Science" is a philosophy. It accepts, without any real evidence, its own tenets, foremost among them being scientific naturalism. Any "scientific" claim that rejects scientific naturalism is uh....not scientific.
Let me elaborate. Science is simply a way to view the world (a view, in my opinion, exactly equivalent to any other from a philosophic point of view). By its very nature, it must postulate objective reality, it must postulate deductive reasoning, and it must postulate naturalism. Granted, it's an excellent tool within its own contexts, but you can't philosophically justify its universiality.
Now, what advantage does "science" have over "religion?" From a viewpoint outside of both, none:
The scientist declares, "We scientists cannot accept divine interference in the natural realm because we see no evidence for it." Well, yes, but now you're using circular reasoning. You can't assume scientific naturalism, and then justify it with itself. Does it appear to work? Yes. Does it prove anything? Not really.
And then when you get into (admittedly valid) postmodern criticisms, using science as a universal worldview kinda goes straight out the window.
What's the great summation? I guess just that science is only valid within it's own contexts. ID isn't "scientific," but that means exactly jack, really.
I have discovered a truly marvelous
Most of cosmology is based on the assumption (that is everywhere in physics taught in the United States) that the Universe can be explained as a collection of particles.
There is a (new?) competing point of view which comes from the condensed matter people which is that the Universe must be explained as collections and "phase transitions". Given the absolute chaos which is inside something as basic as a proton, I find this view more natural.
I have always wondered how much cosmology depends of this assumption, and if cosmologists consider the condensed matter approach. (I may be biased, I am a condensed matter phsyicist.)
Doesn't the strong anthropological theory take care of that? For example, let's assume there are a multitude of Universes (the Multiverse) with all possible values of each variable -- perhaps even with entirely different physics.
... ).
We see *this* Universe simply because we can't exist in any of the others. Intelligent life observes the Universe in which it is possible to have life present simply because it is the only Universe in which it possible to do so.
If you have an infinity of Universes there is a certainty of 1.0 this occurring (but also as Professor Davies has pointed out, it also means an almost 1.0 probability that we're all actually in a simulation, but anyway
Some of those points in that 'Design evidences in the Cosmos' also strike me as misleading or inaccurate. For example, atmospheric CO2 levels. They have fluctuated wildly in the past without 'runaway' greenhouse effects. Geologically, the permanent ice-caps are *new*.
But to parallel the anthropological argument; the geological situation in which we find our civilisation able to develop to this point is very unique. We have had a recent, 10,000 year climate and geology window in which to get this far, without whcih it is debatable whether we would have developed large settled cities in which a scientific specialisation has developed. But aside from philosophical questions as to why you and I and not Urr-Ugghh the Mesopotamian pre-agricultural caveman are around to witness this against-all-odds wonder, we observe this state simply because, without this slender state existing, no one would be here to witness this fact.
Eventually some volcano will suddenly collapse into the sea or a big asteriod will hit us, or the icecaps will melt (or double in size) or a nearby star will go super nova or our solar system's galatic orbit will traverse the galatic plane, or some tother disaster we haven't forseen will smack us back to where we came from and there will be no-one left with the time (or just, no-one left) to ponder at the poverty of existence. Nature is brutal and random. Just thank your dumb blind luck that you will probably die before you get to witness such a thing happen.
-A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed-
You mention that the gravity of the particles is "basically zero". How do you define "basically zero"?
That would be zero with a high pH. Adding zero moles of hydrochloric acid would bring the pH of the original zero down. Assuming the original zero had a pH of 14 (strongly basic), then for each mole of the original zero you'd need zero moles of a strong acid (pH of, say, 0 or 1) to bring the total of zero to a neutral balance.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
Why does God exist in this model? What's the reason to postulate God? Why would the model not work without it?
In short, don't justify yourself by telling me to be open minded, try analysing your own reasons for preferring that model. I'll give you a clue: it's not because it's the best hypothesis for the evidence.
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Ask yourself this: why is God in that model? Is it because it's a bloody good explanation, or because the creationists like the idea of a big brother looking out for them?
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
You suspect wrong.
Yes, so-called "Intelligent Design" is inherently a religious concept. So what? How does that invalidate it?
It doesn't invalidate it - equally, Purple Slime Monsters from Jupiter creating the world can't be disproved. It does, however, mean that it's not a theory based on scientific method, no matter how much you steal the clothes/phrases of real scientists.
If you look carefully at the Biblical account of the Creation
This is the christian version. If you back to the pre-christian sources (jewish legends, the Caballa, etc), you find more detail. Check out the legend of Leviathan. It's interesting - God's perfect work included an evil sea monster that he had to battle. Your christian stories are just tidies up versions of the jewish myths. Nothing true in them - the version you are familiar with is the work of a man, not a god.
you can believe what you want, but don't force it on others. Eliminating Intelligent Design, or whatever you want to call it, from school curriculum amounts to nothing more than censorship, just like eliminating evolution.
But, thicky, you are arguing that we should force teaching of ID on people despite it being an unscientific load of pap. Don't you see the irony?!
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Actually, that was CA Coulson.
But you're right - ID is a God of the Gaps argument. Ultimately, everything is cos God is just a way of abstracting out of reality stuff we can't explain. And I don't even need to start talking about control theories and the catholic church.
J.
Atheist.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Still waiting...
If you can tell me why you postulate God, except for 'We can't explain X any other way', then I'll be interested. Until then, it's just people who want to believe in God but try to sound vaguely scientific to justify their position.
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Clearly you don't understand the meaning of the word. In what way is it science?!
Does it make testable predictions? No.
Does it use the simplest explanation which explains all the facts? No.
How is this crap science?
I'll give you a hint: using scientific words doesn't count. You have to use scientific method
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
How does the very recent acceptance of "zero point energy" fit in with what science know about the beginning and the end? It has been my observation that this is still hotly debated in academia along with serveral other foundational concepts of matter and time. So how can anyone claim they "know"? Weren't we here before just before Einstein?
I understand entirely that many very wise (and tyrranical) individuals have stated religion is a tool for oppression. "Religion is the opiate of the people."
What I'm looking for is a "who's who" of religious oppression today. Are there any cases where inner circle members of religious institutions come out and said: "this is a scam, people should not be involved in this." (Of course, even if they did, the chance of anyone believing them is nil.)
Yes, we can speculate quite a bit philosophically and practically about how religion has been or is used to control the masses. Unfortunately, unless you are one of the people doing the manipulating, it's impossible to say with absolute certainty what the reality is. Claiming religion is nefarious has frequently been an arguing point for those who are anti-religion. Nevertheless, this is a "who orchestrated JFK's assassination" kind of question. It's a conspiracy theory.
Join Tor today!
It could simply keep multiplying itself. May be there was never a beginning either. Humans have begining and end, universe ain't the same.
The grandparent poster was talking about how people need to not hold things sacred and to objectively re-examine the theories in place as new evidence comes into view.
All I stated is that punctuated equilibrium fits the facts of the fossil record quite well while Darwin's original theory does not.
"Funny, the people who actually study it think it is an overwhelming success"
If this were the case, no one would have ever even thought of inventing the idea of punctuated equilibrium. There would have been no need. The fossil record would have been exactly as Darwin predicted it to be, a slow gradual morphing of one creature into another. However, it is not. Therefore my statement stands. The fossil record sucks as corroborating evidence that natural selection works as a gradual process over millions of years to slowly change one form of creature into another (Which is what Darwin predicted).
"to distract observers from the fact that you don't have any theory of your own at all."
Actually, the last thing anyone needs is ANOTHER theory of evolution. There are way too many competing ones now. Again I will refer to the grandparent poster and say that he was exactly right in that ideas should be weighed by how well they are supported by the facts and not by how often they have been repeated by the community at large. Maybe with that approach, minds greater and better trained than mine can start factoting some of the theories out.
As for me, punctuated equilibrium is the most plausible theory. It fits the observed facts better than the old, steady, slow-paced evolution theory, and really helps explain the jumps in creature development that are seen in the earliest part of the fossil record.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Do you think that knowledge about the origins of the universe will help help us identify the origins of intelligence and how to replicate it? If so, then how?
The "standard model" is that systems such as galaxies and galaxy clusters are in gravitational equalibrium, while the plasma model argues that they don't have to be because of magnetic fields and plasma currents. Does this plasma model make any sense at all even for the medium-scale structures, that those fields and currents are even remotely strong enough? Or is this all quack-science hand waving. The plasma model is not invoking any unknown forces, and there should be some EM dudes out there who can say if the fields, currents, and forces could be anywhere near what they would have to be.
There is simply too great a difference between religion and science to warrant these kind of discussions.
:)
One should not compare religion to science, however many religious zealots, and regrettably, many scientific zealots too, seem to think so.
(And those few idiots who regard scientific conclusions and theories as something to believe without criticism also fall into my categorization of religious.)
Some religious people seem to fear the explanations offered by science will deprive them of the 'miracles' and other 'inexplicable, divine' things which they hold dear as proof for their beliefs.
In reality, there is no reason for this fear. One has nothing to do with the other. Sure, there have been centuries of sometimes outrageous discussions between for example creationists and darwinists, very slashdot-esque
This is not sciences fault. Science simply tries to empirically achieve a set of models and theories about the way reality does what it it does. There is no Why or Who. It just Is, and Stuff happens in It.
No hand of god. No clockwork universe. No absolute truths. No mysterious reasons for existing in this universe in the first place. (No wonder some people have trouble grasping the concept...)
Now, a problem inherent with human science is the human factor. Humans make mistakes, not only in calculus etc. but also by inadvertantly trying to match theories to their own expectations. (Early scientists being religious themselves didn't help much either.) Regrettable, but human. New theories are usually flawed. Later generations of scientists bring new material to the table and eventually a theory is expelled, polished up, or replaced by something closer to the Truth about Stuff.
This should not be used by religious zealots as proof that science is crippled; this is the way the scientific portfolio of models and theories is constantly improved, to correspond more to reality, and to be useable as a means of predicting physical phenomenons.
Religion is a matter of belief.
Science is most definately not, it's about facts.
So don't fight over it. It's not worth the trouble.
Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
And for those religious people with the Intelligent Design concepts etc. : since this is about beginning and ending of the universe, I understand why you feel compelled to comment on that because it stirs up a few unpleasant details where your belief is rather sketchy on things, to say the least.
IMO religion is off-topic here.
Scenario - the universe decayed to a low level heat bath - everything decayed into IR including blackholes [probably they will eventually].
Any possible sample of space-time will be statistically indistuinguishable from any other. So it will have a one-bit description - it exists at temp x K with no information able to distinghuish any reference points.
Are we now back to a singularity? Admittedly in a different phase space, but with zero entropy - and guess how stable that is.
What have I missed?
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
incredible... this one is worth a second read. every once in a while i get one of these articles, and they usually just spout cr*p about unsubstantiated theories, to catch the reader's attention... but this is a quality item!
**** You never REALLY learn to swear until you own a computer. ****
Beginning and end, end and beginning only mean something if you are inside the event or universe. When viewed from outside those are just singular observed events in a continuing chain of many observations. It may be vital to you when the universe ends but viewed from the outside it's just a data point in a long (and unending) string of data points.
My head exploded trying to understand this.
You wrote
"The Never-Ending Fractal Universe (Steady-State Reborn..."
This is the one I fervently hopes comes to pass. If the universe is eternal and never ending, then WE, you and I, can live forever. Umm....at this time, I would like to point out to you that ETERNAL LIFE could be a VERY good thing!
Hello!?
So, we should all assume that the The Never-Ending Fractal Universe (Steady-State Reborn) is the actual model, and then take some means to preserve our brains (as in cryonics) in the hopes that hundreds of years from now we can be revived and will live forever in this hopefully eternal universe.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
stuff that doesnt matter
but then do creationist believe in matter?
Cut the hype, these are just imperical observations, not a definitive statement about the nature of the universe. I could just as easily say that energy and matter are inversely appreciated wave forms or distortion patterns which are a byproduct of a larger derivitive system which actually constitutes matter of a sort, in effect a manifiestation of a larger epiphenomena which is beyond our perception and that the universe as we see it is actually nothing more than a distortion or byproduct of that system, and that heat death is actually the dissipation of the distorted mirage which we call existence. There is no spoon! Not only that, there is no 'no' or 'is'. Who can PROVE me wrong? Even if these scientific obserservations are correct in some technical sense, they do not show a complete picture because we have limits on what we can perceive and understand (see ZARDOZ, http://www.badmovies.org/movies/zardoz/). To show a complete picture, we need to invent a science and philosophy that has not even been imagined yet, and is perhaps unimaginable. Scientists need to stop dabbling in grandiose, philosophy science in order to hype their reputations to get research grants and acolytes. They will never escape the human limitations of perceptual reasoning, they will never be God. God is dead...or is he.
How do you feel not that Albert has been proven wrong and that E=MC2 is totaly useless?
It seems that more and more in todays society, people get a lot of right anwsers by asking the wrong questions. Ironic?
Jamey Kirby
Scientists know the answer to the beginning and END of the universe? What crap! They try to fill the universe with "dark matter" in order to explain things they don't understand. It's like the "ether" back in 1800's. I don't believe in dark matter. I believe in facts I haven't heard yet.
Is he with Jesus up in heaven? Or has he just turned to dust and there is no God? Bobby, Age 6 ;)
It seems that scientists stand on their soapboxes and preach from self-proclaimed authority to the unwashed masses about what is and is not fact. Certain well-known theories are taught as rock-solid fact, and anything which flies in the face of these theories is either discounted or hastily explained away. Anyone who dares question a scientist but who does not hold a degree in his chosen field is ridiculed and dismissed as a nut.
My question actually has two parts: what has causes this arrogance, and why do you think the rest of us put up with it?
Yes, I know my original example was sloppy. I'm not the one that modded it up to Score: 5... although it is nice to have the Karma; that just goes to show how slashdot often works. The sloppy, short-attention-span argument tends to fair better vs. the well-reasoned one. Unless you use bold text and
But I suppose that shouldn't be too surprising. It merely means the arguments that are easier to read stand a better chance of getting modded up. In other words, it pays to be that which I am often not, i.e.
concise.
The original poster was asking about how can the Universe have a container and all that. A better answer would have been: we can never really know what's beyond the Universe or if anything is. The answer to such a question is, quite literally, beyond the scope of this Universe. It's rather like "beyond the scope of this book" but more irevocable.
I'm not quite so willing, as you are, to simply say, "you cannot contain an infinite amount of space in something" because I don't know enough physics. Oh sure I've had algrebra-based physics in high school and college, and I readily agree you can't have infinte apples in your house. (unless your house is really a TARDIS.) The thing is, outer space is so darn weird. And, as I already stated, I don't believe we humans understand the concept of infinity as well as we think we do. I also don't think we understand the Universe as well as we think we do. How else can we explain the way that quantum physics seems to make no sense and yet it keeps getting confirmed over and over again?
This is not to say that we shouldn't try to understand the Universe of course. This is also not intended to be an endorsement of pseudo-science or other random bunk like Eternal Life Rings. All I'm saying is that, despite our best efforts to understand the Universe, we're all still hairless apes at heart. (Yes, I know we evolved from a common primate ancestor, not apes per sey.)
Furry cows moo and decompress.
OK, but you still haven't given me one solid datum. I don't know enough about those fields to know what kind of assumptions they make, and how sure their conclusions are; and it sounds like, neither do you.
Let's take, for example, the formation of the Grand Canyon. (I'm going out on a limb here because I'm a total layman in the area, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Geologists know that under normal conditions, the Grand Canyon would take millions of years to erode to its current state. But I remember reading an article in Time awhile back about a geologist who wrote a simulator that was used by nearly all the geological community. The thing was, he was a young-earther; and his simulator proved that, under certain conditions (like, say, the Great Flood described in Genesis), the Grand Canyon could be formed in a much shorter amount of time.
From what the article said, these conditions were somewhat simple, but highly unlikely to occur naturally (something about lava flows pushing up the ocean or something); and that was the main criticism that quoted in the article from other scientists: "Sure, this would happen if the earth suddenly started acting differently for no apparent reason."
Notice the unstated assumption, though? "God never interferes with the physical world; geological processes have always been as they are now." It's a good place to start, but to dogmatically stay there is questionable.
There are two problems with the "God made it look this way" argument: one, it's not very convincing (it really is unfalsifiable); and two, it implies that God did things to purposely mislead us, painting him as some kind of a practical joker or tyrant who asks you to believe what contradicts all the evidence.
But in the case of species, I wouldn't expect genetic unrelation at all. One of the things that makes a good coder is how re-usable and how versatile his code is. It's not at all surprising to me that he used similar designs and mechanisms throughout His creation. After all, don't we have shared libraries, similar stack calling conventions, and code conventions? Aren't there standard ways of doing certain common tasks? Why should God re-invent the wheel every time, or write crufty 'code' just to prove that he exists?
If the newly introduced species were completely random and unrelated genetically, it might make some people more disposed to believe in a God (but even that's pretty questionable); but it would make me lose my respect for Him as a great coder and hacker.
TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.