Scientific Mysticism

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by TruthSeeker, Apr 30, 2002.

Page 5 of 9
  1. Chagur

    Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    Oh well ...

    Xev
    "So, where did I make a mistake?"

    The following article, from 'Chemical & Engineering News' should
    enlighten you. Don't worry, it's relatively easy reading.

    <a href=http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/7811scit4.html> <font color =red> What's That Stuff? </font></a>

    "How long has it been, Chaggie?"

    Not so long that I feel it necessary to curry favor with an immature
    'twerp' (in every sense of the word).

    Tyler

    If you remember, and you should at your age, my comment (directed
    to Xev) was "Your reply is as ridiculous as her question" and that as
    far back as April 4th I had addressed Jan as follows: "Seeing your
    'name' puzzled me since, considering your numerous posts, I had
    not run across your childish prattle before. A quick 'search' revealed
    why: I generally don't frequent the Religious forum."

    Apparently Xev does not have the sense to avoid debate with those
    incapable of it, yet persists in attempting to justify herself to those
    who point out her shallowness.

    Oh, and regarding Xev's tacky "P.S: Tyler, there is of course one way to
    resolve all disputes as to my gender...." and your juvenile "Oh......and
    yes please xev!" ****Yuck****

    By the by, how are things going between you and your girlfriend?

    Take care, all

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Chagur, May 9, 2002
    #81

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tyler

    Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    "Apparently Xev does not have the sense to avoid debate with those
    incapable of it, yet persists in attempting to justify herself to those
    who point out her shallowness."

    I take it by your age comment that you are well past the schooling years. Still, in school, did your teacher just not bother with the kid who didn't get the idea first time around?

    I hope not.




    And yeah, it was trashy and immature and dumb. But who cares?

    As for my girlfriend, we broke up a little while ago.
     
    Tyler, May 9, 2002
    #82

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Chagur

    Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    Hi, Tyler ...

    Yes, I'm very well past the schooling years. Got my Masters back in the
    mid-70's.

    As for bothering with 'kids' ... Yeah, I can see it when they're 6 or 7 years
    old, but I think both Jan and Xev are well past that. Though, at times, they
    both give the impression of being quite juvenile.

    Hey, so long as it was fun. Guess you could consider yourself collateral
    damage in the ongoing 'tit-for-tat' exchange between Xev and I.

    Sorry about the breakup. From some of your posts I got the impression
    you had a thing for her.

    Take care.
     
    Chagur, May 9, 2002
    #83

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tyler

    Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    "As for bothering with 'kids' ... Yeah, I can see it when they're 6 or 7 years
    old, but I think both Jan and Xev are well past that. Though, at times, they
    both give the impression of being quite juvenile."

    Yup, agreed. In fact, I'm not entirely sure why I bother trying to explain simple concepts to someone like Jan or Nelson. I have this uncontrollable urge to try and explain things. It's not really a good thing at all.


    "Hey, so long as it was fun. Guess you could consider yourself collateral
    damage in the ongoing 'tit-for-tat' exchange between Xev and I."

    Okay!



    "Sorry about the breakup. From some of your posts I got the impression
    you had a thing for her."

    Xev? Ah, that's not what I thought you meant. A long while ago in a discussion about love I had brought up my girlfriend at the time. My girlfriend and I broke up a little while ago.

    Xev lives in Michigan. I live in Toronto. There's a slight distance problem!
     
    Tyler, May 9, 2002
    #84
  8. Chagur

    Chagur .Seeker. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,235
    Hey Taylor ...

    I'll pick-up Xev's fare to Toronto ... If you promise not to send her back!

    Take care

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Chagur, May 9, 2002
    #85
  9. Tyler

    Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    Well I can't make any promises that she won't leave......but I'm not throwin' her back!\
     
    Tyler, May 9, 2002
    #86
  10. TruthSeeker

    TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    James R,

    I've read it in a scientific magazine...
    I'm almost sure it was this one (even the picture is the same...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ):
    http://www.sciencenews.org/20010922/bob9.asp

    I got more links... VERY scientific...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Space.com :
    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html
    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-2.html
    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-3.html

    Princeton University:
    http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0103239
    http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/joint98/khoury/
    http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0108187

    CNN news:
    http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/04/13/big.bang.collision/

    Others:
    http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/talks/ngt1000/annecy/index.html
    http://www.analogsf.com/0204/AV.html
    http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/ekpyrotic.htm
    http://finitenature.com/links/

    It's pretty interesting... it solves many problems... but it's hard or even impossible to get any evidence...

    It seems that scientists are accepting it pretty much...

    Love,
    Nelson
     
    TruthSeeker, May 10, 2002
    #87
  11. Tyler

    Tyler Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,888
    Nelson, there's a large difference between accepting a theory and entertaining one.
     
    Tyler, May 10, 2002
    #88
  12. TruthSeeker

    TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    That seems acceptance to me...
     
    TruthSeeker, May 10, 2002
    #89
  13. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Truthseeker,

    Thanks for the links. Good to see you looking at some science.

    Let's look at some of the statements made in your first linked article:
    -------------
    This <b>model</b> for the evolution of the cosmos...

    Although the <b>hypothesis</b> sounds like science fiction...

    "I don't think it's by any means yet a real rival to inflation, but I think it is <b>a model well worth pursuing</b>," says Alan H. Guth...

    In the new <b>hypothesis</b>, however, "our universe begins in a static, featureless state"

    "It's a very radical <b>idea</b> we have," admits Burt A. Ovrut ...

    According to Steinhardt and his colleagues, certain types of branes <b>may</b> turn out to have profound consequences for cosmology.

    "<b>I'm still somewhat skeptical about the whole thing</b>," Guth adds. "They need to make very strong assumptions about the initial conditions—they're really starting out with a universe that's already infinite and uniform."

    At least one <b>empirical test</b> of the ekpyrotic theory may soon be possible

    "I worry a lot about the details," says Ovrut. "<b>This is a theory that's really still in its infancy.</b>"
    ------------

    The emphases are mine.

    Now, Truthseeker, do you still think that scientists believe in this hypothesis without evidence? They seem very cautious to me. They're proposing empirical tests for the theory. They say it still needs work. They say it's in the early stages of development.

    I don't see much mysticism here.
     
    James R, May 10, 2002
    #90
  14. Xev

    Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    I usually head across the 'bridge for the Fourth/Canada Day celebrations in july....feel free to send your credit card number via private message.

    But, I could never leave my wonderfull, wonderfull country.

    Umm, great, thanks, I'll think of that should I ever wish to go blonde.

    Your point being? I made an itty-bitty mistake and ascribed the use of H2O2 to blondes, not to all women who dye their hair?

    You have no fucking clue, do you Chaggie? Look, either stick strictly to personal attacks, or find a place where I am wrong.

    You bore me, so I leave this.
     
    Xev, May 10, 2002
    #91
  15. TruthSeeker

    TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    James R,

    The mysticism is because scientists have no evidence for any of the cosmological theories they ever made. Besides that, some of them just make up things just to explain that the universe was not made for the purpose of our existance. Scientists wants the Random Universe because without a random universe there must be a highter conscience to create.

    Love,
    Nelson
     
    TruthSeeker, May 10, 2002
    #92
  16. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Truthseeker,

    <i>The mysticism is because scientists have no evidence for any of the cosmological theories they ever made.</i>

    This simply displays your ignorance of cosmological theories, Truthseeker. It is easily shown to be false.

    <i>Besides that, some of them just make up things just to explain that the universe was not made for the purpose of our existance.</i>

    Do you have evidence that it was? I don't think you do.

    <i>Scientists wants the Random Universe because without a random universe there must be a highter conscience to create.</i>

    False dichotomy. Also, science would be useless in a random universe. What scientist would want that?

    But back to my previous question: Do you seriously believe that any scientist accepts the brane theory, as opposed to considering that it might be a possible explanation? Even after reading all the quotes from the article I posted?
     
    James R, May 10, 2002
    #93
  17. TruthSeeker

    TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    James R,

    I was talking specifically about the theories of the beginning... lige Big Bang, Big Crunch, etc...

    We have no evidence for either way, so lets stop those assumptions that there's no God...

    A random universe that works by chance and probability is widely spreaded in science. An example... the theory of evoution of Darwin... Always "by chance"... that's the random universe.

    As I've been reading... they assume that it might be a possible explanation. It solves many of the puzzles of the Big Bang theory...

    Love,
    Nelson
     
    TruthSeeker, May 10, 2002
    #94
  18. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    Truthseeker,

    <i>I was talking specifically about the theories of the beginning... lige Big Bang, Big Crunch, etc...</i>

    Yes, I know. There's good evidence for the big bang. For example, the cosmic background radiation and the observed expansion of the universe.

    <i>We have no evidence for either way, so lets stop those assumptions that there's no God...</i>

    Evidence either way for what?
    Science doesn't concern itself with God. There's no scientific assumption that God doesn't exist. It is an unnecessary assumption in any science - just like the assumption that God does exist. Science is neutral on that question, which is more properly one of philosophy or religion.

    <i>A random universe that works by chance and probability is widely spreaded in science. An example... the theory of evoution of Darwin... Always "by chance"... that's the random universe.</i>

    You don't know much about evolution either, do you? Evolution is not random. It relies on natural selection, which is not a random process.

    <i>... they assume that it might be a possible explanation. It solves many of the puzzles of the Big Bang theory...</i>

    They <b>think</b> it <b>might</b> be a <b>possible</b> explanation. In other words, they aren't assuming anything or accepting anything without evidence.

    Nelson, before you start criticising scientists and science and the scientific method, don't you think it would be a good idea to learn something about them?
     
    James R, May 10, 2002
    #95
  19. Xev

    Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Nelson:

    Actually we do have 'evidence' against the existance of God.
     
    Xev, May 10, 2002
    #96
  20. James R

    James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,421
    What, Xev?
     
    James R, May 10, 2002
    #97
  21. Adam

    Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,415
    If you must know, my name is Adam, not God. Get it right. Stupid mortals...
     
    Adam, May 10, 2002
    #98
  22. TruthSeeker

    TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    James R,

    Many scientists nowdays doubt about the inflationary theory. There are many puzzles that may prove it wrong...

    Doesn't seem neutral for me...

    I'm talking about genetic evolution... breeding and randomly exchanging genes... until you get it...

    No. They continue developing more and more theories to try to explain a random universe... and we still don't have any evidence of parallel universes...

    I guess this should be adressed to you...

    Love,
    Nelson
     
    TruthSeeker, May 11, 2002
    #99
  23. Xev

    Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Naw, I'm only evidence against the existance of a merciful God.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The argument of irrational belief
    The argument of suffering

    Can be considered evidence if you use the term loosely.

    I erred, though, in stating my case too strongly. Sorry.

    Thanks JamesR.

    Nelson:

    'Many scientists' is an argument from authority and quite useless. What puzzles that may prove inflationary theory wrong?

    Why not?

    No, you're confusing mutation and natural selection. Mutation is random, but natural selection is not.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
     
    Xev, May 11, 2002
    #100
Page 5 of 9

Share This Page