Slashdot Mirror
Escape from the Universe
rleyton writes "Prospect Magazine is carrying an excellent article "Escape from the Universe": The universe is destined to end. Before it does, could an advanced civilisation escape via a "wormhole" into a parallel universe? The idea seems like science fiction, but it is consistent with the laws of physics and biology. Here's how to do it."
... wouldnt a parallel universe be frozen too?
always mosh clockwise
You've had a civilization dating back billions and billions of years. I'd hope you'd be able to create your own new universe by that point.
what if the parallel universe you pop out through the wormhole into is made completely of antimatter.
Not Egan's best (though it does include the brilliant "Wang's Carpets"), but worth reading.
- Crow T. Trollbot
OK, then redefine 'universe'. After all, an atom can't be split; that's what the word 'atom' means... Just come up with a new word for the larger structure, and don't worry too much about Greek derivations.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Points well taken.
There are a great many number of interpretations of Biblical writings depending on if you are Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc. Some believe in completely literal translation of the Bible. This, I believe, is something in which you find great fault (correct me if I am wrong). I'm not out to change your views, but for what it's worth, there are plenty that don't think that way.
For example, I'm a member of a church in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA). Our particular interpretations are far more lenient, and do not at all suppose that concepts of evolution and science are mutually exclusive from Biblical teachings or faith. On the contrary, we believe God does indeed want us to use our intellect to understand these things.
Of course, the ELCA is considered far more "liberal" than just about any other Christian faith you may find in the US. We have no problems ordaining homosexuals for leadership positions in the church (given a vow of celibacy*), as well as women for the same. Can't say that for the Catholics or Baptists, to be sure.
This isn't meant to be a pro- or anti- religious post regarding any "Christian faith" in the US. I'm not out to change anybody's beliefs. Keep up the critical thinking! This was just meant to be somewhat informative. Hopefully you know something more than before you read my post.
Cheers,
--Kozz
* My politics are more liberal than this, also. I'm not homophobic by any stretch. This is a statement about the ELCA policies, not my own personal beliefs.
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
This is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the relation of theories to facts, one that leads parents in Kansas to place stickers on Biology texts that read "Evolution is a theory not a fact."
The confusion is to treat fact and theory along a continuum according to provability. Something that is well supported is often called a "fact" while something less well supported is called a "theory". The truth of the matter is that facts only exist with respect to theories. What is the "fact" of gravity? That the ball will drop to the ground upon release? No, that is the observable phenomena to be explained.
The "fact" is that it falls because of the curvature of space-time in the presence of mass. Oh but wait, what about good old Newton's view of gravity as action at a distance? What was the "fact" of gravity then? It was just that. The point is that facts are observable data combined with an explanatory theory. The veracity of a theory is measured by it's ability to account for observable phenomena by labeling them "facts".
(Posting Anon because I already moderated this discussion.)
If you're an SF fan, FWIW, this recommendation is from an owner of a SF-specialized literary agency and the son of a SF writer popular from the 50's... 70's or so. If the idea of creation-spanning is interesting to you, then read this book; you are very unlikely to regret it.
The social mileau in the book will feel a trifle dated; the science won't.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'll just say this: I like agnostics a lot more than athiests, that being said...
Athiests are, in my opinion religious: They believe there is no God. They are as firm in this conviction as any Christian/Hindu/Muslim, etc. is in his/her believe that there is a God. Any statement to the contrary invokes a reaction quite similar to what a Christian would have when his beliefs are argued against, and there is a fair (if not large) amount of intolerance towards those whose beliefs are not identical.
Agnostics, on the other hand, are far more open-minded. They are willing to see either way, and aren't going to immediately reject either, viewing both as a possibility, neither of which can be proven.
But, in my view, agnostics also miss the point of religion entirely: To believe in something that is not known, and is not proveable by any known methods, and more importantly, to accept the fact that it may never be proveable at all.
Mass insanity? Maybe. But most theoretical scientists proceed with some facts, but largely a belief that there is something there, and they work and act upon their beliefs (even if their theory may never be 'proven'). Scientists have invested billions of dollars and more than a few man-hours around the ideas of the 'standard model' of particles, or to join the standard model with quantum physics using these things called 'strings'. Yet they plod on, sustained by their belief that some good may come of their research.
Einstein's theory of relativity is a great example: He worked on it, argued about it, etc. But he never lived to see it 'proven'. In fact, he stated himself that it may never be proven, and that a single event can disprove it entirely. But the belief that he was right, and the evidence that seemed to support the theory brought it both recognition and acceptance. It is accepted as fact to a large enough extent that it is still used today.
I see religion as a similar thing: It's important to believe that we are, and can become, more than a sentient animal. It's important to aspire more than we are -- even if there is no possible way to prove we are more than a sentient animal. Most religions attempt to do get its followers to do this, and do it so well that they have lasted millenia. The particular way a religion may improve a person may not be to everybody's liking (it usually isn't). But your morning meal probably isn't to everybody's liking either.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.