RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken

RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

anthrosub -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 5:45:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Someone said science explains things. It most certainly does not. It models things and then attempts to make predictions based on those models. I think you just gave a good definition of the verb, "explain." Scientists explain why it rains by measuring the pressure, relative humidity, dew point, and temperature of the air. They discovered that warm air can carry more moisture than cold air. They also discovered that as air rises, it cools. They then demonstrate how when cold air (which is heavier than warm air) collide, the warm air is lifted above it and is subsequently cooled. If it's lifted high enough and cools down enough, it reaches its "lifting condensation level" or "LCL" and it rains or snows depending on the season (also hail or snow can appear in severe storms in the summer). Ever wondered why fair weather clouds have flat bottoms? Well, now you know why. Tell me how this is not an explanation. Post note: I just realized something...in this example, I think I've just given a demonstration of how science can answer not only "how" but also "why." It's not always the case but it can happen. I think the "why" questions that science cannot answer are those born out of human interpretation and conceptualization (i.e., "Why did this terrible thing happen to me?"). anthrosub

SusanofO -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 5:50:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule Susan, I sent you a message on the other side about four hours ago. Okay, I'll read it. Thanks, Rule. [:)] - Susan

SusanofO -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 6:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Thank you Susan. I could get to like you lol Just keep your posts short and make clear when you add a comment inside an attributable quote. love from seeks. Thank you. Ditto. I try to be nice to everyone. I will try to make my posts much shorter (they usually are). But - I can have a hard time sometimes, swallowing blanket, black-and-white generalizations presented as "fact". Sometimes (most of the time, I tend to ignore it when and if I see it, and consider i as of no great consequence. I try to be friendly to people and polite in attempting to refute something if I do see it. Mostly. But - I can be pretty direct if someone is trying to feed me what I view as , what was it? Oh yes - A crap argument. [:D][:)] Of course in this case, it's a waste of time, no due to anyone's particulazr point of view, but because the question of whether or not God exists, cannot be "proved" or "disproved" with finality (I guess I have to die first, and maybe I won't even know for certain then - who knows?. guess that depends on one's "criteria" for evidence , and what would constitute "proof". At least that's my personal viewpoint (and that's all it is, really). Noah maybe didn't think that anyone around here would ever make posts longer than his. If anyone thought that, I guess that theory just sailed off a flat Earth, he.[;)][:)] - Susan

meatcleaver -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 11:16:00 PM)
God is irrelevent, at least on this side of the grave.

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/11/2006 1:28:28 AM)
Towards the end of the 19th century many scientists were convinced that short of tidying up a few loose ends it would not be long before all that was capable of being known would be known. Obviously I mean in the scientific realm. However when they began to examine those loose ends they ultimately ended up giving the scientific method itself a kick up the pants that is possibly not appreciated by many, if not most people. At the deepest most fundamental level Nature appears NOT to be deterministic. What a shock. What a blow. Science cannot make precise predictions, it flounders in a sea of statistics and probability. At the macro level all appears well, hence anthrosub's weather models appear to be accurate explanations. But they are not ! Probe deeper and indeterminacy, imprecision become apparent. So nature is such that it, so far, defies the scientific method. Surely if that is so then it shoulds give those ATHEISTs out there pause for thought. How can such an indeterminant system, of which we are a part, have come about. Science unquestionably does not provide a method to find out ! I also believe that quite apart from that, fundamental science is in a mess for another reason, nature does not work in statistically random way. This idea, or axiom, is at the root of many scientific explanations that appear to be reaching ever more absurd conclusions. This lack of statistical randomness may be observed in the UK lottery. Despite precautions to ensure unbiased outcomes the numbers 1-46 have not presented themselves in an unbiased way. ie some numbers have cropped up far more frequently than others. So I suspect it is in basic natural phenomena. Thus, for example, the model of the atom developed on the idea of equal probability of outcomes of events, has produced false results. I wonder...is all this waffle ?

meatcleaver -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/11/2006 1:43:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Probe deeper and indeterminacy, imprecision become apparent. So nature is such that it, so far, defies the scientific method. Surely if that is so then it shoulds give those ATHEISTs out there pause for thought. How can such an indeterminant system, of which we are a part, have come about. Science unquestionably does not provide a method to find out ! If we weren't learning anything from science then I would agree with you but we are learning a lot. The very fact we can communicate on the internet, fly around the world, major advances in medicine, even discovering in the 19th that many human deseases were spread in water. The list is too long. The scientific method has been around for 3-400 years, even Newton wasn't against a little alchemy so it has been around it its more rigorous form for less than that. Just because it can't answer the whys or accurately predict random happenings, doesn't mean it has failed. Religion has been around for thousands of years and that just keeps feeding us with the same old superstition created by psychotic prophets.

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/11/2006 2:17:24 AM)
Meatcleaver...I certainly do not believe that science has failed at all. What I tried to expose is the notion that the scientific method may be used to discredit the ideas of the origin of things central to most religious philosophies. Maybe all religions I guess. The moral/ethical side of religion can be examined by the rigorous approach implicit in the scientific method. In many ways it can be found wanting; certainly contradictory across different religions. ie the divinity or otherwise of Jesus. Religion in my opinion is capable of bringing about great good, unfortunately the opposite is also true.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/11/2006 3:00:34 AM)
If religion could prove itself to have more of a foundation than one of pure superstition, I might consider it more worthy of attention. Even as I was sat in church as a child I couldn't help but think, that if there was a god with a message he would have the foresight to speak to me direct than through the insanities of men thousands of years ago. Since God apparently was happy to speak directly to prophets and seemed rather forceful at getting his message across in so much he threatened all sorts of tortures to be visited on those that didn't listen to him, why doesn't he speak directly and clearly to each of us? Simply because god doesn't exist is my answer. Religion isn't necessary to develop ethics and morals.It really isn't necessary for anything positive at all and only exists as a form of control. Since no one is going to find out if there is a creator or not, to me it's irrelevent because I don't believe there is any divine intervention in the universe, certainly no evidence above superstition has been shown to me.

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/11/2006 3:48:10 AM)
As usual Meatcleaver a totally logical position to take.

Chaingang -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/11/2006 4:03:18 AM)
Just as an example of the idiocy of religion... The creator of all things in the universe, the exalted being that created the movement of the planets, hung the stars in the heavens, separated the night from the day, made the birds sing, the bees buzz, and all of nature work in an almost clockwork fashion, the king of the angels, the maker of the color of dawn, he that is benevolently watching over us... ...actually cares if we jack off and "spill our seed"? Weren't we created with the specific desire to do so, and yet isn't it forbidden by the Abrahamic faiths? Someone explain that bit to me. It's too stupid to give it any credence whatever... In all seriousness, does god have nothing better to do with his time?

cuddleheart50 -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/11/2006 4:05:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang Just as an example of the idiocy of religion... The creator of all things in the universe, the exalted being that created the movement of the planets, hung the stars in the heavens, separated the night from the day, made the birds sing, the bees buzz, and all of nature work in an almost clockwork fashion, the king of the angels, the maker of the color of dawn, he that is benevolently watching over us... ...actually cares if we jack off and "spill our seed"? Weren't we created with the specific desire to do so, and yet isn't it forbidden by the Abrahamic faiths? Someone explain that bit to me. It's too stupid to give it any credence whatever... In all seriousness, does god have nothing better to do with his time? Thats all just Your opinion, thank goodness.

Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/11/2006 4:56:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver If religion could prove itself to have more of a foundation than one of pure superstition, I might consider it more worthy of attention. Religions do have a foundation, often parts of it are documented as well. It is just that a lot of their knowledge is obscure or ambiguous. Often it is a mystery what god they obeyed. The gods had names - many names each. When a religion becomes monotheistic, or wants to simplify things, they refer to their god by a generic instead of a personal description. That is extremely confusing to people that live thousands of years later and do not know what the ancient texts are referring to. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Even as I was sat in church as a child A disappointed and not connected unbeliever. That is okay. We all have one of more purposes in life and this is your path. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I couldn't help but think, that if there was a god with a message he would have the foresight to speak to me direct than through the insanities of men thousands of years ago. Those men were not insane. Incomprehensible to modern people, undoubtedly, but not insane. We are born with a number of inherited basic instructions and abilities. Otherwise we are tabulae rasae that are indoctrinated, malforming our minds, by our elders and culture. If we were each born with a set of specific instructions our freedom would be severely limited. Where would the fun be in that? Instead we are born with unknown purposes and it is our challenge to discover what our purposes are. We have to find and walk our own path. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Since God apparently was happy to speak directly to prophets and seemed rather forceful at getting his message across in so much he threatened all sorts of tortures to be visited on those that didn't listen to him, It is called power politics. A lot of prophets were harassed by whatever god or power as well. There are plenty of examples of prophets that were forced to be prophets. They had no ambition to be a prophet but were hardly given a choice. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver why doesn't he speak directly and clearly to each of us? To speak requires a mouth, or ink and paper, or a computer with a keyboard. Therefore, for the Creator - or any other god - to speak to someone, he has to be incarnated as a human being. As such he or she is subject to the same rule as any human: to be born as a tabula rasa, not realizing his or her own nature. So you may have already spoken directly many times with the Creator or one of the other gods and not have recognized them as such. For that matter: conceivably you may be an incarnation of one of the gods yourself. As for spirituality - God, if you insist - it pervades the whole universe and everything in the universe is in constant, subtle communication with it. quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang The creator of all things in the universe, ...actually cares if we jack off and "spill our seed"? Weren't we created with the specific desire to do so, and yet isn't it forbidden by the Abrahamic faiths? Someone explain that bit to me. Why do you suppose that the Creator was the god of Abraham? Because the Old Testament says so? World mythology speaks of at least three different creation rituals, but the god that is recognized as the Creator partook in only the first of them. According to Egyptian mythology, the Creator grasped his member and masturbated and spilled his seed and thus created. Do you now still think that the Creator was the god of Abraham?

WhipTheHip -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/11/2006 5:45:18 AM)
> At the deepest most fundamental level Nature appears NOT to be deterministic. The universe is completely deterministic.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/11/2006 5:55:03 AM)
Rule. We occupy different universes and have no common ground. There is nothing of solid substance in what you say, just the ethereal. You would better to spend your time telling people to suspend reality and take a journey into their imaginations and anything they dream of is in actual fact the true reality.

Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/11/2006 6:09:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Rule. We occupy different universes and have no common ground. Nonsense. We occupy the same universe. Indeed we do have common ground, as your ground is a part of my ground - but only a part, for my ground is bigger than yours. What we differ in is our perception of what philosophers call phenomenological reality. Your reality is a small part of mine. quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver There is nothing of solid substance in what you say, just the ethereal. Nothing of substance? Truly? quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver You would better to spend your time telling people to suspend reality and take a journey into their imaginations and anything they dream of is in actual fact the true reality. I am sorry, but that is not me and I will not follow your advice. I am the most rational person on this side of the moon and I hope that humanity will eventually evolve to something that approaches my rationality.

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/11/2006 7:34:08 AM)
Whip the Hip says that the Universe is completely deterministic. As I understand it (very limited )Quantum Mechanics says it is not. In fact one of the absurdities, to me anyway, is that in QM there is a finite probability that anything can happen in response to a given stimulus. However in the electronics industry there is a device called a Tunnel Diode, which over one part of its Volt/Current characteristic has a negative resistance region. This region violates classical deterministic interpretations in that current is able to traverse a potential barrier that should be impossible, but according to QM has a finite probability of occuring, and it does. Just thought I'd let you know.

anthrosub -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/11/2006 4:43:50 PM)
seeksfemslave, Here's part of your previous reply... "At the macro level all appears well, hence anthrosub's weather models appear to be accurate explanations. But they are not!" Just like our previous encounter, you completely ignore the point being made and go forward with simply stating things as if they are facts. I asked you a question...you ignored that and will probably ignore what I'm saying here as well. You are what's known as a sophist...that's the civilized way of putting what I'm really thinking. Go look it up if you know how to use a dictionary. anthrosub

Lordandmaster -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/11/2006 4:48:07 PM)
Laughing...reality is reality, Rule. If it's your reality, it's his reality too. Reality is independent of our beliefs about it. (That's what makes it reality, after all.) quote: ORIGINAL: Rule We occupy the same universe. Indeed we do have common ground, as your ground is a part of my ground - but only a part, for my ground is bigger than yours. What we differ in is our perception of what philosophers call phenomenological reality. Your reality is a small part of mine.

Rule -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/11/2006 5:02:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub "At the macro level all appears well, hence anthrosub's weather models appear to be accurate explanations. But they are not!" Just like our previous encounter, you completely ignore the point being made and go forward with simply stating things as if they are facts. I asked you a question...you ignored that and will probably ignore what I'm saying here as well. I observe an apparent misunderstanding. Seeks did not oppose your macroscale model of what makes rain fall, but stressed that at the quantum mechanical scale - and therefore by extrapolation also at the macroscale - the universe is non-deterministic. Indeed, I suppose that meteorologists rejoiced when chaos theory - one flap of a single butterfly's wing three days later may cause a storm on the other side of the world - was proposed. Finally they had a model that might provide better predictions than their inaccurate macroscale models. Perhaps their models are more precize today, but they are still inaccurate. The uncertainty principle of Heisenberg rules the universe. quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Laughing...reality is reality, Rule. If it's your reality, it's his reality too. Reality is independent of our beliefs about it. (That's what makes it reality, after all.) Quite. There is only one reality: that is what I meant when I stated that we live in the same universe. However, how we perceive the universe / our reality is not identical, but subjective. I wrote this post and all other people did not. Thus we experience that part of reality differently. One of them crazy philosophers thought up the name phenomenological reality to distinguish the subjective, perceived reality from the absolute, objective reality that they presume exists.

Lordandmaster -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/11/2006 6:59:56 PM)
All right, all right. Just don't say that your reality is larger than his. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule There is only one reality: that is what I meant when I stated that we live in the same universe. However, how we perceive the universe / our reality is not identical, but subjective. I wrote this post and all other people did not. Thus we experience that part of reality differently. One of them crazy philosophers thought up the name phenomenological reality to distinguish the subjective, perceived reality from the absolute, objective reality that they presume exists.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125