DEEP THOUGHTS

NormInv

The theory that time is circular and that everything that has happened will happen again (and all that hasn't happened has already occurred) has always intrigued me.

But the deepest thought of all has to be this - what's sexy about the person above you?

Is sexy deep or superficial? Is it subjective or objective?

you aint gettin' any, are you?

CrazyTrackLady

If the sun explodes and destroys Earth, will God cease to exist? Think about it.

That's the whole "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" query. (I.e - does god exist if those who think of him cease to think of him?) Fun stuff to think about.

Ahh, but what if God created multiple Earths??

To answer that question ourselves, we would have to have proof of god's creating other worlds. Though if god DID do so, then he would still exist. BUT not to us, because our own concept of god would be null and void (because we'd all be extinct.) So at that point, god would be a sort of Schroedinger's cat - both alive and dead until someone could verify or deny his existence.

TOUCHE!

If God is the infallible creator of the universe, than HE would not allow the destruction of his own creation. However, the sun has a limited life span. Once the sun's gas supply runs out, it WILL become a dwarf star, then just blip out. The subsequent explosion will destroy earth.

Since God cannot prevent the sun from exploding, logic dictates that the sun, like humans, has free will. It will explode because it has chosen to explode. (tongue in cheek here).

Therein lies the conundrum.

Depends on your version of God or God's version of us. If it's God's version of us then what we call destruction is probably just part of the life cycle of what he has created.

But which God do we consider as creator of the universe, as there are many Gods, all of whom were created long before the Christian God came to be?

CrazyTrackLady

The theory that time is circular and that everything that has happened will happen again (and all that hasn't happened has already occurred) has always intrigued me.

But the deepest thought of all has to be this - what's sexy about the person above you?

Is sexy deep or superficial? Is it subjective or objective?

you aint gettin' any, are you?

Please refer back to my post re: speed of stupidity. There's a formula for this.

TomTomato

Since darkness is the absence of light, wouldn't the speed of it = to that of light since it would be the speed of light leaving that causes the darkness?

Mr_Bad_Example

The theory that time is circular and that everything that has happened will happen again (and all that hasn't happened has already occurred) has always intrigued me.

But the deepest thought of all has to be this - what's sexy about the person above you?

Is sexy deep or superficial? Is it subjective or objective?

I find it to be rather subjective myself - and both deep and superficial, depending on the individual's perspective.

Mr_Bad_Example

8/10 Would bang.



LOL!

8/10 Would smash... or however that thread is supposed to go.. heh

And with that, I will stop derailing this thread's interesting debates.

quirkytizzy

Yeah but thing is that I am starting to wonder if science is just another hypothesis, like religion.

You put an ant on a piece of paper, and it exists in that 2-dimensional universe, with no conception of anything else around it.

Science can be tested under controlled circumstances in repeated experiments - repeated and IDENTICAL experiments - and come to the same conclusion.

Religion holds no such promise.

That's not the way science works for me. To know how a cell works, how a plant grows, how a star forms - these are wondrous things. Knowing these things adds to the beauty of nature, not detracts from it. Every time I see a star and know that I made from star stuff, I get goose bumps.

But the thing that allows you to know you are star stuff IS science. In no way does the math and theories of it detract from that wonder. In fact, it can make it ever more amazing and beautiful because we've discovered it, we've named it, and we are continuing to explore it.

Science and wonder, definition and beauty - these are not mutually exclusive concepts.

ltgarrow

The theory that time is circular and that everything that has happened will happen again (and all that hasn't happened has already occurred) has always intrigued me.

But the deepest thought of all has to be this - what's sexy about the person above you?

Ok, so somebody obviously watched Battlestar Galactica.

But since we're on the subject of time travel. Traveling through time might change your existence in a time, but not position in the universe. And since the Earth is contantly moving, and the solar system is constantly moving, and the universe is constantly moving. Where would we end up if time trave were possible. So, since we have no idea where we'd end up, and no idea of how to get back to Earth, why would we need it?

quirkytizzy

Ok, so somebody obviously watched Battlestar Galactica.

But since we're on the subject of time travel. Traveling through time might change your existence in a time, but not position in the universe. And since the Earth is contantly moving, and the solar system is constantly moving, and the universe is constantly moving. Where would we end up if time trave were possible. So, since we have no idea where we'd end up, and no idea of how to get back to Earth, why would we need it?

That's like a form of Continental shift. Never thought that before, but you WOULD need specific locations in order to compensate for drift between objects, at least if you were traveling large spans of time.

FREAKIN' AWESOME.

Also, I would absolutely volunteer for a future time travel, even if a return to my present time or even to Earth was not possible. I guess the caveat would be that there'd be SOME kind of species I could comfortably make a home with. I don't think I'd do so well with eons of time traveling by myself.

NormInv

Yeah but thing is that I am starting to wonder if science is just another hypothesis, like religion.

You put an ant on a piece of paper, and it exists in that 2-dimensional universe, with no conception of anything else around it.

Science can be tested under controlled circumstances in repeated experiments - repeated and IDENTICAL experiments - and come to the same conclusion.

Religion holds no such promise.

That's not the way science works for me. To know how a cell works, how a plant grows, how a star forms - these are wondrous things. Knowing these things adds to the beauty of nature, not detracts from it. Every time I see a star and know that I made from star stuff, I get goose bumps.

But the thing that allows you to know you are star stuff IS science. In no way does the math and theories of it detract from that wonder. In fact, it can make it ever more amazing and beautiful because we've discovered it, we've named it, and we are continuing to explore it.

Science and wonder, definition and beauty - these are not mutually exclusive concepts.

You are confusing science and MATH. Mathematics as in 1 + 1.

Math is universal. Science is subjective like religion.

quirkytizzy

You are confusing science and MATH. Mathematics as in 1 + 1.

Math is universal. Science is subjective like religion.

Science is comprised greatly of math, though yes, they are not exactly the same thing.

Science is not subjective like religion. A hypothesis can be tested, repeatedly, using identical circumstances, and come to the same conclusion every time.

I have yet to see a single theory concerning religion hold up under those circumstances.

NormInv

You are confusing science and MATH. Mathematics as in 1 + 1.

Math is universal. Science is subjective like religion.

Science is comprised greatly of math, though yes, they are not exactly the same thing.

Science is not subjective like religion. A hypothesis can be tested, repeatedly, using identical circumstances, and come to the same conclusion every time.

I have yet to see a single theory concerning religion hold up under those circumstances.

I will repeat my example of ant on a piece of paper living in two dimensions. Any experiments it performs on this piece of paper will be proven mathematically, but to a human will only show how severely limited the view of the ant is.

Similarly, the science we got is based on our limited senses, limited dimensions. You can construct a theory of science based on what you perceive but that is your reality, no more. And similarly, maybe faith requires more senses, more dimensions, more awareness.

quirkytizzy

I will repeat my example of ant on a piece of paper living in two dimensions. Any experiments it performs on this piece of paper will be proven mathematically, but to a human will only show how severely limited the view of the ant is.

Similarly, the science we got is based on our limited senses, limited dimensions. You can construct a theory of science based on what you perceive but that is your reality, no more. And similarly, maybe faith requires more senses, more dimensions, more awareness.

That gets into circular thinking - how can I trust what I see if I can't prove that it - or I - exist? I suppose in the barest sense, some faith must be made, if in your own acceptance of the physical world in front you if nothing else.

But "your reality" is only subjective as in as far you stay out physics. I.e - you can believe there is not a semi headed your way in your reality, but you're still going to get turned into road burgers if it hits you - belief in it or not.

Mr_Bad_Example

The theory that time is circular and that everything that has happened will happen again (and all that hasn't happened has already occurred) has always intrigued me.

But the deepest thought of all has to be this - what's sexy about the person above you?

Ok, so somebody obviously watched Battlestar Galactica.

But since we're on the subject of time travel. Traveling through time might change your existence in a time, but not position in the universe. And since the Earth is contantly moving, and the solar system is constantly moving, and the universe is constantly moving. Where would we end up if time trave were possible. So, since we have no idea where we'd end up, and no idea of how to get back to Earth, why would we need it?

Actually, I've never seen Battlestar Galactica - I read it in a book called "Einstein's Dreams."

If time travel is a possibility, how far back would you be able to go? Could you only go back as far as the time device that transports you existed (i.e. I built my time machine five days ago, so I can't go any further back than five days)? And lastly, time travel is real - we all travel through it, we just can't determine how we travel... yet.

NormInv

I will repeat my example of ant on a piece of paper living in two dimensions. Any experiments it performs on this piece of paper will be proven mathematically, but to a human will only show how severely limited the view of the ant is.

Similarly, the science we got is based on our limited senses, limited dimensions. You can construct a theory of science based on what you perceive but that is your reality, no more. And similarly, maybe faith requires more senses, more dimensions, more awareness.

That gets into circular thinking - how can I trust what I see if I can't prove that it - or I - exist? I suppose in the barest sense, some faith must be made, if in your own acceptance of the physical world in front you if nothing else.

But "your reality" is only subjective as in as far you stay out physics. I.e - you can believe there is not a semi headed your way in your reality, but you're still going to get turned into road burgers if it hits you - belief in it or not.

We have our own beliefs. All I am saying is that I dont think physics as we know it holds up in other places, nor does chemistry or biology or aquaculture. What does hold is math and stats and matrixes and linear algebra and pi and Lo'Hpital's Rule and such.

To each his/her own.

foxro

You are confusing science and MATH. Mathematics as in 1 + 1.

Math is universal. Science is subjective like religion.

Science is comprised greatly of math, though yes, they are not exactly the same thing.

Science is not subjective like religion. A hypothesis can be tested, repeatedly, using identical circumstances, and come to the same conclusion every time.

I have yet to see a single theory concerning religion hold up under those circumstances.

I will repeat my example of ant on a piece of paper living in two dimensions. Any experiments it performs on this piece of paper will be proven mathematically, but to a human will only show how severely limited the view of the ant is.

Similarly, the science we got is based on our limited senses, limited dimensions. You can construct a theory of science based on what you perceive but that is your reality, no more. And similarly, maybe faith requires more senses, more dimensions, more awareness.

All of this discussion around science assumes that science is pure and not corrupted by bias or politics like religion

NormInv

You are confusing science and MATH. Mathematics as in 1 + 1.

Math is universal. Science is subjective like religion.

Science is comprised greatly of math, though yes, they are not exactly the same thing.

Science is not subjective like religion. A hypothesis can be tested, repeatedly, using identical circumstances, and come to the same conclusion every time.

I have yet to see a single theory concerning religion hold up under those circumstances.

I will repeat my example of ant on a piece of paper living in two dimensions. Any experiments it performs on this piece of paper will be proven mathematically, but to a human will only show how severely limited the view of the ant is.

Similarly, the science we got is based on our limited senses, limited dimensions. You can construct a theory of science based on what you perceive but that is your reality, no more. And similarly, maybe faith requires more senses, more dimensions, more awareness.

All of this discussion around science assumes that science is pure and not corrupted by bias or politics like religion

Not corrupt but biased.

Also get this mind boggling thing in mind

Religion <> God

religion is biased and painted and abused..

God cannot be.

quirkytizzy

Not corrupt but biased.

Also get this mind boggling thing in mind

Religion <> God

religion is biased and painted and abused..

God cannot be.

I think we've discovered our main difference here. You believe in god, or some sentient being of creation. I do not. That is similarly going to influence our views. I still say god or not, a semi-hits you, you're going to feel it. God will not prevent the sensation - that's written in indelible code by science. (You might not die, but this is where our credit for not dying will diverge. Others will credit luck and science, some will credit god.)

NormInv

Not corrupt but biased.

Also get this mind boggling thing in mind

Religion <> God

religion is biased and painted and abused..

God cannot be.

I think we've discovered our main difference here. You believe in god, or some sentient being of creation. I do not. That is similarly going to influence our views. I still say god or not, a semi-hits you, you're going to feel it. God will not prevent the sensation - that's written in indelible code by science. (You might not die, but this is where our credit for not dying will diverge. Others will credit luck and science, some will credit god.)

sorry but you picked the most convenient difference among our views - god - cuz its easy to dismiss god.

Our main difference is this:

math is universal, science is temporary and localized. science as you know it doesnt exist outside of the known universe.

the god debate is not for this thread.

quirkytizzy

sorry but you picked the most convenient difference among our views - god - cuz its easy to dismiss god.

Our main difference is this:

math is universal, science is temporary and localized. science as you know it doesnt exist outside of the known universe.

the god debate is not for this thread.

I'm sorry, you kept using religion as a comparison to science. I thought perhaps you were speaking about religion.

Perchance I was wrong and you weren't thinking religion when you continually kept mentioning?

And no one postulates that science exists OUTSIDE of the known universe. We say it exists in our universe. We also know that other universes (should they exist) would likely follow a set law of behaviors, though it may look nothing like ours.