Jump to content

On Theory


Darkblade20

Recommended Posts

On Theory: An essay I typed up in my free time. Theory with the intention of competing on par with current theories of existence, including evolution, and intelligent design. Let's shake this forum up a bit :wall:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Theory: Perceptive Correlation on Life and the Universe.

 

 

 

Albert Einstein quoted Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame. Almost a paradox, or oxymoron, taking into account the immense conflict that the two bodies come into. Agnosticism, claiming a neutral stance, states that any ultimate reality (as God), is unknown, or probably unknowable (). Atheism, on the other hand, is neither as viable a stance, nor a logical take on religion, as one who maintains that there is no God. While maintaining that there is no God, per se, Atheism makes the mistake in maintaining God, as a tangible medium of faith, thus defeating its very purpose. One cannot, however, argue the existence of an intangible, or non-existent body, leaving any level of debate in a perpetual spin. My stance on the matter, though, draws on a different medium, maintaining that such bodies, tangible or not, exist only through the collective consciousness, and belief of such matters by the general psyche that persists in humanity. Thus, neither religion nor science become the prevalent means of existence in our society, as existence itself, can only be explained by perception.

 

 

 

Deprive a single human being of the five senses linked to general perception: Sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste. What then, does existence become? With loss of vision, colors cease to exist, as do the general forms of objects. With loss of auditory function, and the sense of touch, objects lose texture, form, and basic properties (Such as weight, or composition). With the further loss of olfactory, and gustatory function, objects will cease to exist. A child, slowly incubating in his mothers womb, what exists for such a form? Only with the addition of the basic senses does the world itself come to life, only then does what we perceive as life, come to exist. Does a form without the ability to perceive believe in God, in evolution? If you dont know what God is, does he still exist? The basis of religion is in maintaining the influence, and existence of a deity through faith, which is also a medium of perception and thought. If all Christians were to suddenly cease practicing their faith, is there a God? Does this apply to individual practitioners of a certain faith, or a completely different faith as a whole? Drifting to the other end of the spectrum, the theory of evolution would not exist if there were no scientists to study the phenomenon. Taking that into consideration, the basis of longevity for both sides of the argument pertinent to our existence, both support the fact that without the human mind, both subjects are nigh. The mind being the only medium for conduction of our sense of perception, human beings cease to exist without it, death being clinically defined as the cease of brain function that can be measured be EEG.

 

 

 

Greek philosopher Protagoras said "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not. To a great extent, he was probably far ahead of his time in terms of philosophy, and correct in his theory. Taking note that we all probably had to be created at some point, take this into consideration: With the introduction of the five senses, objects are given their basic properties. We can see that water is liquid, that a mountain is tall, and rocky. Yet, somehow at one point, were stuck thinking the Earth is flat, and we are the center of our universe. With our invention of basic transportation, and the introduction of mathematics, as well as inventions such as the telescope, the Earth suddenly becomes round, later spherical. The Earth suddenly becomes a planet orbiting an immense sun, the universe suddenly taking scope, the magnitude of its size becoming apparent. The introduction of flight, and aerospace technology give the planets of our solar system composition, also aided by the invention of powerful new technology. When you begin to examine the progression of our existence from that of a flat surface in the middle of the universe, to that of an improbable anomaly amidst the current of an infinitely vast universe, it becomes apparent that the sole reason for the general knowledge, or even the existence of the universe as it is today, is a direct product of the advancement of man. Could you explain the size of our universe, or the composition of Jupiter without any of our technology at the time? Without such instruments, the universe as it is, would probably cease to exist as a tangible body in our mind. Yet, tangency in itself is yet another propagation of mans never-ending quest in search of the, again, ultimate reality.

 

 

 

Considering the above facts, the lines between what can be considered as real, surreal, fiction, or intangible begin to blur, even fade away. If whats considered real is a byproduct of the collective conscious of humanity, what can be, realistically, considered, well, real? (No pun intended, of course). Furthermore, how can we consider the word real as an effective medium of existence, if real itself, is also at the same time, the brainchild of perception, and is thus unreal at the same time. Can anything be considered real? Exemplifying the sheer power behind the mind, simple propositions can be blown out of proportions infinitely, yet with the arguments currently at stake, they can make perfect sense, or none at all, at the same time. Such is the power the brain leases to a human, or an animal, even the smallest organism; The power to bend reality around oneself. Just like a jellyfish, though, reality is not made up of one, individual mind, but millions of minds, to form one, which meld together, forming a single, sentient form. Whos to say humanity isnt the product of some other organisms collective consciousness? An octopus, a lion, both of which are proven to show perceptive ability, could we not be a mere hologram projected by the mind of a creature which we deem inferior? Or perhaps, as a whole, the world, and all its inhabitants, are simply on the same level of existence, equal to one another as the creators of our universe, after all, humans are not self-sufficient as some animals are, and would surely not be here if not for the aid of animals. Perhaps the sign of some sort of mutual symbiosis, key in the existence of not only ourselves, but those around us. Again, though, this is merely speculation based on evidence present in nature.

 

 

 

After a bit of reading here, one might ask, how is it that the world does not exist, although everyone else can clearly perceive everything that is going on, at the same time. Again, it comes down to what can be called the collective consciousness. The world is perceived as uniform by such an immense number of minds, the form of the universe ceases to change, and probably never will. How do you remove an image from wood, etched by fire, without first destroying the original piece of wood? A man once said, a mind stretched by a new idea, will never return to its original dimensions. If you fill a balloon with water, and tie it off, its nigh impossible to return the balloon to normal, without popping the balloon itself. The father of Futurism, F.T. Marinetti, was probably correct in his endeavors to destroy the history of the world, destroying all museums, colleges, libraries, in an attempt to start over anew, his views on history perfectly conveyed by his belief that History is the process by which the dead bury the living. In order to change existence, by that token, humanity would have to destroy its very foundations, all which we are built upon, everything that makes the world what it is. Then however, how is it that the universe stretches far beyond that which we can see? Look at it like this: We wish for there to be life on mars, and there is, with the aid of only ourselves to be accounted for. We invented the technology, thus, without the power of the mind, life would not exist on mars. Man wishes for there to be other planets beyond our solar system, and so there is, only with the aid of our own minds. There is no outside force swaying the existence of these phenomenon, simply our own desire for their existence. Is there life in the universe other than ours? If we wish hard enough, the day will probably come. This theory, in which perception, and the mind become the basis of our existence in its current form is only supported by such degrees of information persistent in society.

 

 

 

Looking in retrospect of whats been said, even perception itself starts to become sketchy, it too, being yet another concept of man-made production. Just imagine, the only reason for existence, the only reason for this entire, vast universe coming down to a single element, a single form: The brain, a sole tool in not only the conception of perception in itself, but also a primary organ, vital in the life of every creature. Every organism in existence has some form of structure that can relate to a brain, whether it be a nucleus, or something completely different, they all exist to perform the same function, which is to preserve life. What is existence, then, without the mind? Therell probably never come a time in which we will ever find out, perhaps, though, the answer everyone seeks, that ultimate reality, is right behind our very eyes. Hell, one could even go on to argue that organs themselves are merely elements of what our eyes are showing us, then, going even further than ever before, where does perception even begin to propagate? Does this reality, or anything in it really exist as we know it? Even then, where does this concept of reality come from, and concepts like such can stretch infinitesimally. Obviously there are numerous theories which strive to explain the existence of the universe, or at least attempt to act as the supplements which form the stepping stones down the path of truth. Yet, as mere speculation, it becomes increasingly difficult to pinpoint that ultimate reality, in which we all seek. Perhaps, though, the simplest answer, in the case of perception, does indeed, become the best answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Your arguement can most easily be summed up with the quote 'I think, therefore, I am' by Rene Descartes.

 

Similarly it could be summed up with the riddle 'If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?'

 

 

 

Both depend on perception being the most important qualifier for reality:

 

'You must be able to understand in order to exist, or you do not exist'

 

'Something must be experianced or it does not exist'

 

 

 

Both of which are wholy incorrect.

 

We would not say that an atom of Hydrogen understands fusion, or valence theory, but it exists and (Not so)merrily fuses to produce helium. Surely Descartes does not have a leg to stand on?

 

"Ah but Descartes was talking about intelligent life, ie for something to be intelligent and therefore capable of percieving it must understand what it is percieving."

 

So clearly plants are intelligent...Well they see the sun, know that it is the source of their food and follow it...therefore they understand how they work, so therefore must be intelligent.

 

"Ah but clearly then you are not intelligent because you don't know how plants work."

 

 

 

Hence 'I think, therefore I am' is more about proving that the white man is superior to all other forms of life. For instance if you ask 'How many bubbles are there in a bar of soap?' or 'how long is peice of string' you are looking for a subjective answer, one which everyone you deem not to know, will not know.

 

 

 

But this is semantics, we are supposed to be talking about whether perception is a valid way of understanding the universe, and simply put, it isn't.

 

If I see an apple fall from the tree I do not assume gravity, but accept that something has fallen.

 

If perception stood any chance of being a workable theory then it must expand, as Descartes said, to understanding not merely perceiving. But if we move from one to the other then many things would not exist...For example the tree in our second quote.

 

 

 

If perception is key then the other trees in the forest, the leaves on the ground and the soil, can all perceive the tree falling, they can perceive the sonic vibrations and hence 'know' that is has made a sound. But it is unlikely that any of them 'understand' that the tree has fallen, furthermore it is unlikely that they, in themselves, understand that they exist.

 

Hence, not only does the sound not exist, the tree doesn't exist and the forest....doesn't exist.

 

 

 

Clearly this theory based on understanding is flawed entirely. Perception is then a dead end, one which cannot expand beyond simply seeing something, which, in itself, does not prove existance.

 

 

 

 

 

What is more plausible though? Well that existance is the key...things that exist, exist, and things that don't, don't.

 

Once existance has be rested directly a theory can move forwards. Perception shows how something work, while understanding shows why something works.

 

'If an apple falls from the tree, does it prove gravity?'

 

So the tree and apple exist, and gravity exists. Step one.

 

The apple falls from the tree. Step two.

 

The apple must be pulled, by gravity, from the tree. Step three.

 

 

 

Of course it does not 'prove' gravity, it merely states gravity as the 99.99^Nth% probability of existing. Leading to step 2.5...faith.

 

 

 

Now faith is something I like to stay away from because people get testy about it. But still. In the above example faith would be:

 

The apple falls from the tree because it is natural.

 

There is an undeniable belief in nature and the natural order and it is right, it is under developed, but important.

 

 

 

So going back to your opening, in which you claim neither religion or science are compatible, I would disagree. Science tells us how and why something happens, but faith tells us that it is the right thing to happen...

 

Hmmm, tangent, sorry: All the apples you have seen in your life have probably fallen downwards, and you have faith that the next apple you see fall will also fall downwards. If the next apple you see fell upwards then your belief would be shook to the core(No pun).

 

 

 

Faith does not mean 'I believe in a man in the sky who makes everything right' it means 'I believe that there is a natural order to things and it is somehow controlled by something.'

 

Science merely claims that the natual order is dictated by the laws of physics rather than an omnipotent being.

 

If you think about religion then it does the same thing as science: it sees something and thinks of an explaination as to how and why it is as it is. Science appeals to our logical senses while religion appeals to our emotional senses.

 

 

 

As an Atheist that believes in God; A God which did not create us or destroy us but is the embodiment of perfection...Sigh, I didn't want to get into this but still:

 

We are all us(Go us!) and we are all moving towards, or away from, our perfect self...the self that we will be most happy with. God is the embodiment of that perfect self, but does not exist anywhere but in our soul/mind. Our perfect self is not the same as other people's perfect selves, but as individual as we are.

 

My belief probably still has a long way to go, but in its simplest form...You should always do what is true to yourself, even if it doesn't get you what you want.

Well I knew you wouldn't agree. I know how you hate facing facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Drifting to the other end of the spectrum, the theory of evolution would not exist if there were no scientists to study the phenomenon.

 

 

 

CLAPTRAP!

 

 

 

Evolution is independent of whether or not scientists are there to observe it. Your whole argument is flawed. Bacterial life evolved into complex plants and animals, which in turn evolved into amphibians/reptiles/dinosaurs etc etc, all without humans having to be there to watch it all. Anthropic stances are intrinsically flawed because they put the cart before the horse.

 

 

 

The existence (of anything) is intrinsic. Descartes was wrong, rocks, for example, exist, but they do not think. They are made of atoms which are detectable and measurable. And just because they are measurable, that does NOT mean that they require to be measured to actually exist.

 

 

 

Scientists do not have faith. If you see something fall, over and over again, in repeatable circumstances, (apples from trees etc) you make a LOGICAL leap that this will always happen. There is no faith, no wishful thinking, or hope, or anything else entangled with the assumption that it will always happen. It is merely a conclusion based on evidence and facts.

 

 

 

In prehistorical times everything was mystical, God was the simplest and quickest solution to everything. But God is not an explanation, you learn nothing if you explain something with God, all you are doing is being intellectually lazy. If we explain water flowing downhill as God, we learn nothing, if we explain it as gravity, they we also understand why and how it rains downwards, why and how objects fall, and ultimately why and how planets and heavenly objects orbit. It takes a lot more effort to truly explain something.

 

 

 

If you fast-forward human development and learning, God becomes the solution to less and less, and Science becomes the solution AND the explanation to more and more. I see no reason why this will not continue, Science explaining more and more until the concept of God becomes irrelevant.

 

 

 

God is a human concept, in a world where many things were unknown, fear ruled, and the concept of a God would have been a comforting thought. Knowing that there was someone/something pulling all the strings with a "grand plan" making everything happen for a reason. Just because people want God to exist, it doesn't mean that he does. A lot of people are too scared to even contemplate that he does not exist.

Proud owner of Questcape since 4th July 2009!! :D :D

 

sphinxor_86.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheist

 

In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities

 

Deity

 

A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers

 

Deist

 

Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme god created the universe, and that this and other religious truth can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone

 

 

 

Since I do not believe in a 'Divine being that is believed to be beyond nature and immortal', nor do I consider it holy, divine or sacred, though I do hold it in high regard, but do not necessarily respect them, it can be fairly safe to assume that I do not believe in a deity.

 

Therefore Atheist, since I also do not believe we were created and then 'God' left, which would be Deist.

 

 

 

I believe in something which is....finding the words is not easy... Something which is not beyond us because it us, but is more than the us that we are willing to be.

 

Like an acorn and a oak tree. One becomes the other, but the other is the one, so, in a sense, they are both the same, although they are different.

 

 

 

My 'God' is not 'God' but the perfect version of me...Something that I aspire to be, even if I do not fully understand what that will be. For someone else my 'God' will share none of the attributes of their 'God'.

 

 

 

 

 

Scientists do not have faith. If you see something fall, over and over again, in repeatable circumstances, (apples from trees etc) you make a LOGICAL leap that this will always happen. There is no faith, no wishful thinking, or hope, or anything else entangled with the assumption that it will always happen. It is merely a conclusion based on evidence and facts.

 

What rubbish. Scientists always live in faith. Faith is something which, despite not being provable, is assumed. An apple will fall is assumed, the fact is we do not know that that will happen...we can imagine an ideal set of circumstances but the fact is that there is no evidence to support your claim that the apple will always fall down EXCEPT personal experiance...the same personal experiance that 'proves' God exists.

 

'Evidence and facts' are nothing but collected delusion. 'I have evidence that Churchill was a real!' No you don't you have a bunch of things that suggest that is the truth. It sounds pedantic but science must accept the fact that it is only another form of religion...It seeks to explain the world.

 

 

 

It takes a lot more effort to truly explain something.

 

To understand something, that is where the effort actually lies...I mean we don't 'understand' gravity, we merely think we know how it behaves and we think we know why.

 

Tommrow you could wake up on the celing and you would not understand gravity at all...It is impossible to understand anything, we can only construct a belief in things...'Gravity exists so I believe that I will remain on the ground'

 

 

 

Science explaining more and more until the concept of God becomes irrelevant.

 

'Humans are unique in history as being the only race to be both able deal with any disaster as well as being able to destroy itself.'

 

Science has advanced us more in the last 100 years than religion has in the past 600. But in the past 100 years more people have died than in the past 600...It seems like a rather poor trade off.

 

Added to that the suffering which now exists across the entire planet, at least religion believed in charity...Does this new world that science created believe in charity? Then why, when there is plentiful food, do people still die of stavation. Why then when there is plentiful medical treatment do people not recieve it for free?

 

That is science's legacy, we have created generation after generation of people who are willing to sell their 'soul' for a quiet life.

 

 

 

Just because people want God to exist, it doesn't mean that he does. A lot of people are too scared to even contemplate that he does not exist.

 

 

 

We, as a race, are very good at inventing reality. Take currancy for example...How exactly does Gold benefit anyone? It cannot feed or clothe you, it cannot(easily) defend you or house you...We trade things of value for something which is without value. Yet we, mostly all people, are scared that if we didn't trade these things without value that the world would fall apart....

 

 

 

When we are willing to accept the truth then we can let go of God, until that time you are taking a child away from it's mother and complaining that it is crying...Science on the other hand is a pillow waiting to suffocate, or rest, the child, it depends entirely on how it is used.

Well I knew you wouldn't agree. I know how you hate facing facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faith and belief in the sense that you and I are using, are DIFFERENT things.

 

 

 

Faith is based on nothing but personal instincts, prejudices and preferences.

 

 

 

Belief, at least in my sense and the sense that can be applied to science, is based on evidence and fact. It is a leap of logic, not a leap of emotion or personal

 

 

 

And contrary to your opinion of

'Evidence and facts' are nothing but collected delusion.
. Evidence and facts, are pure and independent, anyone and everyone of sound mind would agree that apples fall from trees, and that these events happen without there needing to be people present or collaboration between people. Its not some grand delusion.

 

 

 

We do understand Gravity, exceedingly well in fact. If tomorrow we all woke up on the ceiling, then some major rethinking would be needed. But considering that nothing of that nature has happened in thousands of years, we do not expect that it will happen anytime soon either, and we therefore conclude that our current explanation of gravity is a satisfactory one.

 

 

 

Of course more people have died in the past 100 years, there are more people alive now than there are people who are dead (across human history). Statistically, you'd expect more :P

 

 

 

 

That is science's legacy, we have created generation after generation of people who are willing to sell their 'soul' for a quiet life.

 

 

 

That's rubbish, the reason why people go hungry and stay ill in this world is because of rich countries wanting to stay rich and pharmaceutical companies profiteering. Its politics and finance which imbalance the world.

 

 

 

The world in which we live in, is not one created by Science, it is one where science has been allowed to flourish, and where science has been manipulated for political and military gain (DARPA for example). I can guarantee you that if scientists had political power, the world would be a very different place.

Proud owner of Questcape since 4th July 2009!! :D :D

 

sphinxor_86.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um...I am sorry to butt in, but when did the VL become the religious discussion thread?

 

 

 

Belief is the personal opinion of an individual. People generally like to be put in groups, thus we have Christians and all the various plays on the religion, we have Muslims, Buddhists. The thing is, people do not seem to create their own religions anymore. And that's my problem with the world is that we can have a collective group of religions, but when bringing up some kind of other religion, using different ideas, the person doing so is shunned. How can a person be shunned for personal beliefs?

 

 

 

Religion, in truth, has more facts against it usually than with it. Christianity can best be summed up as "God crapped out the world in seven days...", wait, why does God have to take seven days to create the Earth? If he was so powerful, then why the hell did it take him so long to create this planet?

 

 

 

God can be likened to an invisible guardian, but, has anyone ever thought he could be a demon? If there were a god, think to yourself what he has done to the human race, his race, over the past thousands of years. If there were a god, I could quite simply say he was a demon, or the devil. Oh, but can't say that in a church because your [wagon] would be kicked out, because Christians become defensive. Really defensive.

 

 

 

Who's to say Satan is not the anti-christ? Who's to say we aren't supposed to be following him? Who's to say by following god, we are actually following the anti-christ? Makes you think right?

 

 

 

I am not atheist, but Christianity, to me, is so full of holes. Religion in general is full of holes. Religion is pretty much taking sides with a god or deity, without any knowledge of their intentions.

 

 

 

"Oh, god is good." Who's to say? He ended up flooding the whole world and killing everyone but Noah because he was so pissed that they were not praising him. I would say if he were real, he should've done that a long time ago.

 

 

 

"Satan is bad." We are told to believe that. I am not a satanist, but I am saying that this book, written ages ago, the Bible, takes sides. It drastically does. It basically tells you, "Good is god, Satan is evil". Does anyone else ever find this somewhat odd? The book has to put right in there what side we should take. Why should we pray to an unseen force that has done nothing since the days of Jesus? Oh, there are the people who prayed and stuff happened, but those are the crazy ones who apparently think there is no such thing as coincidence.

 

 

 

I ultimately find the bible too biased. Follow Jesus for retribution, follow the anti-christ for an eternity in hell. But here's the thing, if this event happened, how the hell are we to know who is who?

 

 

 

Another thing that makes no sense, is where is heaven, where is hell? Hell is usually described as being the center of the Earth, but how the hell is that possible?

 

 

 

One theory going around is that we are all, basically, electric energies. When we die, the energies move on, either to another body that is missing energy, or to wherever. But I drink water, so these electric energies things seem a bit fishy to me.

 

 

 

Do we know anything about death? No. Will we? Not until we die.

hatsune-miku-wallpaper-49-1.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I might get a keylogger to make sure I don't keep losing all my work because of ruddy 'Windows is not responding...'

 

 

 

Anyway, it was mainly semantical so... :evil:

 

 

 

Do we know anything about death? No. Will we? Not until we die.

 

 

 

Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves - or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth.

 

~Ayn Rand

 

 

 

The world in which we live in, is not one created by Science, it is one where science has been allowed to flourish, and where science has been manipulated for political and military gain (DARPA for example). I can guarantee you that if scientists had political power, the world would be a very different place.

 

 

 

Sorry, I disagree. Scientists are intelligent but not wise.

 

I think a measure of wiseness would be whether or not it was worth finding out if a fundermental particle, one which we already knew the properties of, at the possible expense of creating black hole...destroying the planet.

 

Now I am for scientific progress but realistically I don't think that science needs to progress that far...personally if the chance of a black hole is more than extremely unlikely(as it is when you tread on a cat; probably not going to cause a black hole but it might) then the benefits of such an experiment must be questioned, and if the only benefits are 'It will help us understand the universe' then sorry but that is not worth it.

 

 

 

You see my problem with the world is that science has advanced us so far, without advancing our minds one iota...in fact we have actually regressed. For example 1900 we have people argueing over the fundermental way we lead our life. 2000 we have people worrying over not seeing the 'last' series of Friends because of Y2K.

 

At least Religion kept us from destroying the planet, science actively encourages us.

 

So I am not saying that religion is good, but I am saying it can be used correctly without instructions...Science can't. We actually need to progress spirtually and mentally before physically...not play catch up, with a one legged man playing the spirtual progress, a snail as the mental progress and the bullet train as the physical progress.

 

 

 

Sigh...Ok. Religion did not stop all scientific progress...take for example Hay, and Wheat(Natural Wheat has about 5 husks per stalk, where as the Wheat we see in a field has about 200)...Both created by people living under a theocracy. As such the progress made was both useful and used well. More animals could be kept and more people could be kept alive but the same sized area of land. Added to that there was not a competition between farmers to buy out the others, so progress was shared inside the country.

 

There was a stable amount of progress.

 

 

 

If you then consider 1850 to 1900 you will see the population of a number of countries double...that is not stable progress, that is insanely dangerous progress. If you futher consider that the price of modern consumables is a landfill the size of Texas floating in the Atlantic, made in the past 20 years then the progress has become insanely dangerous.

 

As someone once said:

 

"Humans are unique as the only race in history to have enough power to both leave Earth and make themselves extinct."

 

 

 

Belief, at least in my sense and the sense that can be applied to science, is based on evidence and fact. It is a leap of logic, not a leap of emotion or personal

 

 

 

As long as we both know what the other is saying.

 

 

 

We do understand Gravity, exceedingly well in fact.

 

 

 

This will probably be rushed...

 

Ok, say there was an exercise in trigonometry. You had to estimate the shape of a ladder against the side of a building.

 

Now you can look at a building and a ladder and in about 5 seconds have a pretty good idea what it will look like...you do not need to use Trig to work it out.

 

But the excerise is there to help you learn how to use Trig, not to work out the actual answer.

 

It is similarly so with Gravity. We do not need to 'understand' the force of Gravity is approximately 9.7 Newtons, or it is caused by curved space, we just need to 'know' that things fall downwards, that is as far as our minds will take us...going further requires sustained thought, as well as the use of Mathematics(Which is like using a calculator or pen and paper, or even more sustained thought).

 

 

 

Why? Because we cannot understand it. Our minds are not designed to work like that, they are designed to learn how to communicate with each other...We have effectively jury-rigged a computer out of a telephone and now wonder why the screen isn't working.

 

Now then the word 'understand' throws most people off so let me try to be clear. When I say understand I mean you can perceptively see it and are able to make a guess without using any numbers (like the Ladder-House problem; because our minds are programmed to know basic Trig because we are spear throwers, as well as being tree jumpers, and knowing how far you have to jump/throw is helpful in that end).

 

In that sense of the word we do not understand Gravity at all. We can understand the how and why but we cannot understand the concept itself.

 

Lets say there was a subtle change in gravity(the ladder has slipped back a half metre), would we notice or would we need a machine to help us work it out? With the Ladder we instictively know that there is something different.

 

 

 

I hope that is clear ::'

 

So..yeah.

Well I knew you wouldn't agree. I know how you hate facing facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still disagree.

 

 

 

YOU may not understand gravity, but many eminent theoretical Physicists routinely think in a 4-dimensional curved spacetime, without the need of putting pen to paper. The best example of this would be Professor Stephen Hawking who physically cannot write and has learned to envisage and manipulate complicated equations as images in his mind.

 

 

 

And the real head cases routinely think in 10+1 dimensions (space+time) although don't ask me exactly how that works.

 

 

 

With all due respect I hardly think that the progress of science has lead to the moronic celebrity culture that stalks the west.

 

 

 

Religion has always stood in the way of anything and everything that did not conform to its outmoded principles and ideals. During the Black Death, people were encouraged to gather in Church to pray for repentance to be cured, instead of being encouraged to maintain quarantine. And more recently with the Pakistan earthquake a few years ago, weeks after the event, people were still sat on the rubble of their homes just saying "God wills it".

 

 

 

The power of humanity lies within itself, not some ethereal fog that hangs over our heads. People should abandon religion, stop finding divisive and destructive ways to segregate from one another, and club together to help one another and better the world.

Proud owner of Questcape since 4th July 2009!! :D :D

 

sphinxor_86.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This belongs in off topic(for the record debate club means runescape debates)

 

As said, Debate Club is for RuneScape related debates.

 

 

 

From the Debate Club rules:

 

The purpose for posting on this forum is to stimulate discussion about RuneScape-related topics. If you enjoy getting into detailed debates over RuneScape issues then this is the forum for you.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

RIP Michaelangelopolous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, what have I created? Sure, I enjoy criticism and debate, but it's not been even 24 hours. Second, most of you seem to be picking apart the essay as if it were split into parts, yet, the idea is present throughout, thus, one must take it as a whole. Using analogies which concern physical, tangent processes, and objects, is similarly useless, as the initial argument here, is that based on a presence of certain, undeniable attributes, these idea's cease to exist. That being said, the only method of argument becomes induction through the use of logic.

 

 

 

Archimage, to respond to you, take this into consideration. As I stated in "On Theory," natural processes continue to exist, with or without our knowledge, because through perception, we acknowledge that, for example, sound exists, and when a tree falls, it makes a sound. Or perhaps you disregarded that entire portion? Thus, in that we acknowledge this phenomena exists, it can continue to propagate with, or without the presence of a perceptive being. Of course, you can also argue that animals in the area are perceiving this event, as are other lifeforms proven to have intelligence. Then you can make the conjecture, that through this series of events, the forest does, indeed, exist.

 

 

 

As for your apple tree, did it cross your mind that perhaps: Only because the tree exists, the apple has the ability to fall. Or that only because we exist to walk on the earth, gravity can then be discovered. Tell me.. if we didn't know we were walking on the earth, anchored down by some invisible force, would we have discovered the existence of gravity? Without the invention of spacecraft, and observational technology, would we know there is no gravity in space? The answer then, is no, the phenomena simply does not exist. Why is that statement true? On an individual scale, what cannot be perceived, does not exist. If the same observational qualities apply to every human, then the same statement can be similarly applied. I'm not saying it cannot exist as it's own entity (gravity), but to the human being, or even to a lowly ant, the individual is to what the world matters, and nothing else. This applies to atoms, to plants, to the very air.

 

 

 

As for religion: Religion is anything that we put faith in. To be more accurate, what my theory pertains to, is the concept of intelligent design, or that some omnipotent, cosmic being created everything. Just to clear that up.

 

 

 

Also, I clearly define atheism for everyone who seems to be confused: "One who maintains that there is no God."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What rubbish. Scientists always live in faith. Faith is something which, despite not being provable, is assumed. An apple will fall is assumed, the fact is we do not know that that will happen...we can imagine an ideal set of circumstances but the fact is that there is no evidence to support your claim that the apple will always fall down EXCEPT personal experiance...the same personal experiance that 'proves' God exists.

 

'Evidence and facts' are nothing but collected delusion. 'I have evidence that Churchill was a real!' No you don't you have a bunch of things that suggest that is the truth. It sounds pedantic but science must accept the fact that it is only another form of religion...It seeks to explain the world.

 

 

 

So I'm not the only one who thought this. :mrgreen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would we know there is no gravity in space?

 

 

 

 

NO!!! There IS gravity in space!! It is a common misconception that there is no gravity in space. If there were no gravity, how would things stay in orbit? :P

 

 

 

Basically you happen to be accelerating at the same 'rate' that gravity does. (from a Newtonian picture), this acceleration cancels out the sensation of gravity, so you feel weightless.

 

Think of a lift falling really quickly, you, and everything else in it would 'levitate' and you would feel weightless, but the Earth is still pulling you toward it, and you therefore still have a weight.

 

 

 

For a General Relativity picture, all that needs to be noted is that in space, close to *any* object the space is curved (ball on a rubber sheet idea), and you are in the 'well' created by this curve. To stop yourself from falling in you must travel at a certain speed (orbit), since you are not traveling inward you don't feel gravity, BUT the space around you is still curved, so the force of gravity is still there. To be in a place with no gravity, you'd have to get a region of space that was flat (ie: extremely far away from anything).

 

 

 

This is a simplified picture, to explain it properly I'd need to talk about inertial reference frames, and I'm not going to!

Proud owner of Questcape since 4th July 2009!! :D :D

 

sphinxor_86.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was simply trying to make a point, many people are unaware of the physics behind everything. On that note, how would you have known any of that without the invention of mathematics, which is a byproduct of perception?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An octopus, a lion, both of which are proven to show perceptive ability, could we not be a mere hologram projected by the mind of a creature which we deem inferior?

 

 

 

I think therefore I am; this argument is inherently flawed.

 

 

 

Then however, how is it that the universe stretches far beyond that which we can see? Look at it like this: We wish for there to be life on mars, and there is, with the aid of only ourselves to be accounted for. We invented the technology, thus, without the power of the mind, life would not exist on mars. Man wishes for there to be other planets beyond our solar system, and so there is, only with the aid of our own minds. There is no outside force swaying the existence of these phenomenon, simply our own desire for their existence. Is there life in the universe other than ours? If we wish hard enough, the day will probably come. This theory, in which perception, and the mind become the basis of our existence in its current form is only supported by such degrees of information persistent in society.

 

 

 

This is basically the law of attraction; which is fundamentally flawed.

 

 

 

Deprive a single human being of the five senses linked to general perception: Sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste. What then, does existence become? With loss of vision, colors cease to exist, as do the general forms of objects. With loss of auditory function, and the sense of touch, objects lose texture, form, and basic properties (Such as weight, or composition). With the further loss of olfactory, and gustatory function, objects will cease to exist.

 

 

 

They dont cease to exist, they are simply not observable to said human who lacks sensory perception. Even if you cant visually track a bullet in mid air it doesnt cease to kill you when it hits.

 

 

 

Taking note that we all probably had to be created at some point, take this into consideration: With the introduction of the five senses, objects are given their basic properties. We can see that water is liquid, that a mountain is tall, and rocky. Yet, somehow at one point, were stuck thinking the Earth is flat, and we are the center of our universe. With our invention of basic transportation, and the introduction of mathematics, as well as inventions such as the telescope, the Earth suddenly becomes round, later spherical. The Earth suddenly becomes a planet orbiting an immense sun, the universe suddenly taking scope, the magnitude of its size becoming apparent. The introduction of flight, and aerospace technology give the planets of our solar system composition, also aided by the invention of powerful new technology. When you begin to examine the progression of our existence from that of a flat surface in the middle of the universe, to that of an improbable anomaly amidst the current of an infinitely vast universe, it becomes apparent that the sole reason for the general knowledge, or even the existence of the universe as it is today, is a direct product of the advancement of man. Could you explain the size of our universe, or the composition of Jupiter without any of our technology at the time? Without such instruments, the universe as it is, would probably cease to exist as a tangible body in our mind. Yet, tangency in itself is yet another propagation of mans never-ending quest in search of the, again, ultimate reality.

 

 

 

Your making a flawed analysis of reality here. Just because we couldnt observe that the earth wasn't the center of the universe way back when doesnt mean it was the center of it all. If you hear wrong and think gravity is two hundred times stronger then it is, we dont all get crushed under the weight.

awteno.jpg

Orthodoxy is unconciousness

the only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Religion has always stood in the way of anything and everything that did not conform to its outmoded principles and ideals. During the Black Death, people were encouraged to gather in Church to pray for repentance to be cured, instead of being encouraged to maintain quarantine. And more recently with the Pakistan earthquake a few years ago, weeks after the event, people were still sat on the rubble of their homes just saying "God wills it".

 

And yet a similar argument can be applied to science by religious people. It isn't religion that built weapons capable of more or less sterilizing the world. It isn't religion that creates more and more efficient killing machines. Sure there's another side to science, but there's also more to religion than the great mind-controlling progress stopper that turns man into chimp :lol:

 

 

 

Plus, people have known about the world being spherical since sailing existed. The curve isn't exactly well-hidden, is it?

 

 

 

In addition to Archmage's and Mmmcannibalism's points :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YOU may not understand gravity, but many eminent theoretical Physicists routinely think in a 4-dimensional curved spacetime, without the need of putting pen to paper. The best example of this would be Professor Stephen Hawking who physically cannot write and has learned to envisage and manipulate complicated equations as images in his mind.

 

 

 

'While my initial reports showed much diversity on Earth when I looked more closely I discovered that infact there was only one type of human on the planet. The human had an XY chromosome and an IQ of 250. From this I deduce that Humans are some sort of extreme homosexual, since studies of the DNA show that XX and XY must mix to form a baby, and extremely intelligent race.'

 

Now, as far as I know my dreams do not come true...

 

You are talking about one or a handful of individuals, I am talking about Humanity...Humanity does not exist as 1 person so you must take an average...and the average says that Human beings do not and cannot understand gravity.

 

Further more I very much doubt that he can. Why? Well our good friend the Higgs Boson pretty conclusively proves that he does not. He is 1 in 10 afraid that the Higgs Boson will not exist(figures lifted from British TV-Channel 4, a few months ago). So clearly he does not believe that he fully understands it...Thus your argument lies in ruins.

 

 

 

With all due respect I hardly think that the progress of science has lead to the moronic celebrity culture that stalks the west.

 

Oh indeed...but it is the speed at which the advances happened that lead to our terrible culture. Could the celeb have risen had it not been for TV, Radio and Internet? Could we have such an overweight population had it not been for TV, Computer and the Microwave? Could we have built bombs capable of destroying the planet had it not been for Rocketry, Atomic theory and Aircraft?

 

Science, as I said, advances like a bullet train, out pacing any sort of mental growth in the population...Would we have people living on benefits if there was not enough food to feed everyone?

 

Communism tried to solve that problem, but opened up a hundred more in that we cannot be trusted nor can we trust others to look after us...we NEED something indepedant, like money, as a safety net.

 

 

 

You claim that science has not caused our culture and yet every part of our culture can be linked to a scientifical discovery in the last 150 years.

 

 

 

Religion has always stood in the way of anything and everything that did not conform to its outmoded principles and ideals. During the Black Death, people were encouraged to gather in Church to pray for repentance to be cured, instead of being encouraged to maintain quarantine. And more recently with the Pakistan earthquake a few years ago, weeks after the event, people were still sat on the rubble of their homes just saying "God wills it".

 

 

 

Religion also dispersed food to the poor when they were in need, provided guidance for people who were not able to think for themselves... sure they would have started to think for themselves eventually, but would that be sensible, considering what happened when they did? Uprisings and the toppling of tradition, leading to a self destructive cycle, eventually ending in the planet flooding due to global warming...

 

 

 

Yes the system might seem outdated by today's standards but at the time they were the best solutions. If you gather in a church then you are able to talk and co-ordinate, as well as not traveling to different areas...It is the best solution for MOST situations.

 

Added to that once you had something like measles or rubella, you would never get it again... so if everyone went to the Church then everyone would be exposed at once, meaning that rather than a virus that circulated though the population over many weeks, even months, it burned out in a short period.

 

 

 

The power of humanity lies within itself, not some ethereal fog that hangs over our heads. People should abandon religion, stop finding divisive and destructive ways to segregate from one another, and club together to help one another and better the world.

 

 

 

Wrong. We should encourage segregation and local control.

 

The more we diversify the more we lose the ability to come at things from new angles. Take for example fishing:

 

European powers have found nets and lines to be effective. The Chinese on the other hand have found that trained Birds are effective.

 

Because of segregation we now have three systems instead of two...

 

 

 

Furthermore local control makes more sense than central control. For instance local people set the taxes that they pay, so they set the standard and type of education and therefore can either become rich or intelligent and then rich. A mild case of Eugenics yes...

 

I agree that we should be able to co-operate to do something greater than any individual can do, but rather than doing that though business or government it should be though people wanting to help.

 

It will never happen because the scientists want the Large Hadron Collider, which serves no useful purpose beyond theoretical sciences... the long shot group...So your science controlled future rules it out.

 

It will never happen because the military want an army, and in Napoleon's words 'A man will not have himself killed for a half pence a day, nor for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul, in order to electrify him.' Without nationhood and patriotism this is incredibly difficult. So the Dictatorships rule it out.

 

It will never happen because the business men want a work force, which must be able to merge into larger and larger organizations. So Capitalism rules it out.

 

It will never happen because the clergy wants a docile population, so people who understand themselves and the world around them would not be good... so Theocracy rules it out.

 

It will never happen because the majority wants a quiet life, with so many things telling them it is bad how will they know that they stand to benefit from it.... So Democracy rules it out.

 

 

 

The only system it will work in, ironically, is its own. In order for it to work people must be able to take charge of their own destiny, something which cannot happen while their future is controlled by men in lab-coats, women in business suits or cameo.

 

In the words of Andrew Ryan:

 

"The people merely exchanged one lie for another: Instead of one man, the Tzar, owning the work of all the people, all the people owned the work of all the people."

 

Until we take ownership of our own work, and responsibility for our thoughts, fears and actions we cannot stand without religion and survive.

 

 

 

 

 

Or perhaps you disregarded that entire portion?

 

Maybe...

 

I suppose I just read your article though and found it lacking in any conclusive point...So I took your conclusion and tried to work backwards, defeating your arguments one step at a time.

 

But there was no conclusion...

 

Perhaps, though, the simplest answer, in the case of perception, does indeed, become the best answer

 

The simplest answer, in terms of wester philosophy is 'I think therefore I am', which appears to be what your argument focus on... Perception of the world around us proves existence.

 

Though it is hard to collate your argument into a cohesive form (I think you have an big idea and are unsure of how to explain it)

 

 

 

Tell me.. if we didn't know we were walking on the earth, anchored down by some invisible force, would we have discovered the existence of gravity?

 

It is rather like asking 'How long is this piece of string, to 5 significant figures?'

 

There is a length, but guessing it at random is not going to be easy. Even if you can see it, it will not be easy. But by carefully measuring it we can discover the answer. But first you need to be able to see it, and thus you must experience it to measure it and thus without experiencing it you are making a solid guess, and if no one tells you you are wrong then you might give up there. Or even get the right answer but not accept it and look for another.

 

Or like many questions we cannot see not answer it at all...

 

 

 

The answer then, is no, the phenomena simply does not exist. Why is that statement true? On an individual scale, what cannot be perceived, does not exist.

 

God sort of disproves that...We cannot perceive him but (some of us) know he exists. Yet other can perceive him, but the fact is that he does not exist... So perception is a flawed method of learning... it may be the only one that we have but that does not make it right... Sort of like using Pi as 3... you will get close to a right answer, but you will only get the right answer if you make another mistake along the way.

 

 

 

"One who maintains that there is no God."

 

I disagree. Atheism means the disbelief in any form Deity...IE an immortal being.

 

God is not immortal (as Jesus showed) nor is it beyond nature, as Heaven shows... The use of of God shows a narrow minded view of the world, and is actually incorrect too.

 

 

 

NO!!! There IS gravity in space!! It is a common misconception that there is no gravity in space. If there were no gravity, how would things stay in orbit

 

 

 

If you want the simpler view then see it like magnetism... the closer you get the stronger the attraction. At a large enough distance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Freeze) gravitational attraction fails... but the distance is epically huge.

 

Like putting a magnet at one end of a room and a screw at the other... the movement would be so small, for so long that it would appear not to be moving, but if you sped it up... say by a million years every second, it would edge towards the magnet, but every time it moved closer the attraction would get stronger.

 

 

 

 

 

On that note, how would you have known any of that without the invention of mathematics, which is a byproduct of perception?

 

Hehe. Mathematics is kind a product of perception, but it is more a product of heuristics...It is problem solving device. We need it because, as I said, we can only make estimates. For precise measurements we need something a little more complicated than our generic neurons, and this is mathematics.

 

We are programmed to be able to measure things, basically by using our arm. Since things tend to be more than 1 arm away we have to guess about how many arms away something is. This gives us simple addition...

 

If something is moving towards us we have to be able to workout roughly how near it is getting... so there are two ways:

 

You either start again, estimating how many arms away it is (a costly procedure)

 

Or you take the arms away from the current number.

 

The truth is I do not know which system is used, but from the evolutionary point of view subtraction is extremely beneficial.

 

Everything else is Heuristic. We have to learn how to multiple and divide.

 

We can make the jump to multiplying fairly easily because it is basically adding. Dividing though requires a lot more effort to learn.

 

 

 

Plus, people have known about the world being spherical since sailing existed. The curve isn't exactly well-hidden, is it?

 

Actually it predates that even. The first experiment, on record, was between 2 towns.

 

Both towns had sundials and someone got two people to measure the exact position in both town at the same time and compared the difference. The difference was something like 2 Degrees, which mean that the world was curved, and using this he predicted more or less the accurate size of the planet... and this was in 1200 BC

 

But then it predates that when you think about it... StoneHenge for example... it could only have been built it the builders knew that the Earth went round the Sun, and being StoneHenge is only the most well known of hundreds of 'Henges' it is probable that the Brits knew the Earth was round as early as 5000BC.

 

And who knows how early it was actually discovered, these are only the records of it. It could have been discovered by the first monkey as he left the trees, he(or she) left the trees, looked up and thought 'Its obvious the Earth goes round the Sun, well thats one less thing to tell the children.'

 

Science only popularized it later.

 

 

 

mmmcannibalism

 

I have to disagree with some of your points, but my arguments are already present.

 

 

 

I think we have got the key arguments down, now it should just be a process of elimination to find the right answer.

 

~Scientific Method.

Well I knew you wouldn't agree. I know how you hate facing facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objects exist whether we perceive them or not, but I would argue that empiricism (sensing the universe) is a necessary prerequisite for knowledge of this existence. It should really go without saying, though...

 

 

 

Faith does not mean 'I believe in a man in the sky who makes everything right' it means 'I believe that there is a natural order to things and it is somehow controlled by something.'

 

Science merely claims that the natual order is dictated by the laws of physics rather than an omnipotent being.

 

If you think about religion then it does the same thing as science: it sees something and thinks of an explaination as to how and why it is as it is. Science appeals to our logical senses while religion appeals to our emotional senses.

 

 

 

You neglect something - science bases it's propositions on repeated observation and testing, so the existence of natural laws doesn't involve faith. Sure, there may be that minuscule chance that our entire perception is somehow wrong, but science accepts the uncertainty as well. It's understanding and knowledge, not faith. I'm defining faith here as belief without evidence, but on the contrary science demands evidence.

 

 

 

What rubbish. Scientists always live in faith. Faith is something which, despite not being provable, is assumed. An apple will fall is assumed, the fact is we do not know that that will happen...we can imagine an ideal set of circumstances but the fact is that there is no evidence to support your claim that the apple will always fall down EXCEPT personal experiance...the same personal experiance that 'proves' God exists.

 

'Evidence and facts' are nothing but collected delusion. 'I have evidence that Churchill was a real!' No you don't you have a bunch of things that suggest that is the truth. It sounds pedantic but science must accept the fact that it is only another form of religion...It seeks to explain the world.

 

 

 

Science may require assumptions, but they're a far cry from religious faith because they're based on repeated observations and have to be concordant with all that we know about the world. Anyone can appreciate that gravity continuously works because we all experience it all the time, so it's not a far cry to assume that the force of gravity is a constant. Assumptions like these aren't like the personal experience that "proves" that god is real; any nutjob can claim that they've proven god is real or that they have evidence for some other concept, but that's them misusing the terms or using them too loosely based on highly questionable experiences.

 

 

 

You shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater here - evidence and facts can inform us all about the world. They're not a delusion at all. Even saying that evidence is a delusion is a contradiction in terms if you think about it. Added, a religion isn't merely something which seeks to explain the world. I recommend you read up on what religion is. I can assure you, science is definitely not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The power of humanity lies within itself, not some ethereal fog that hangs over our heads. People should abandon religion, stop finding divisive and destructive ways to segregate from one another, and club together to help one another and better the world.

 

 

 

Wrong. We should encourage segregation and local control.

 

 

 

 

NO!!!! The more segregation that exists, the more that "us and them" mentality rears its head, and that only leads to conflict. BITTER conflict.

 

 

 

Almost all wars and genocide, with the exception of WW1 and 2, have been driven, justified and sanctioned by religion. The Inquisition, the crusades, the Moors, the ongoing palestinian-israeli conflict, conquest of the Americas, colonization in Africa, slavery for crying out loud was sanctioned by the Anglican church. Even (but to a lesser extent) the Holocaust. Had there been no Judaism, Hitler would have found it much harder to justify what he was doing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most "weapons" that science has invented actually came from a practical use, any handheld weapon has its origins in animal hunting, a necessity for survival. It is not a gun that is evil, it is the person pulling the trigger. Gunpowder was a tonic for eternal life, not a weapon. TNT was originally invented to help miners obtain ore, once Alfred Nobel realized that people were using it destructively he came up with the Nobel prize to try and counter the problem.

 

 

 

The nuclear bomb is the only exception, this was a weapon designed to be so from the start, and considering the extremely limited use as such, especially during the Cold War, I'd argue that people have realized the magnitude of the potential for disaster.

 

Having said that, scientists have found a use for it also, in Nuclear power, the thing that may eventually come to save the world.

 

 

 

Science advances, and in that advancement, yes we create problems, but we also find solutions to those problems as the advancement continues. Science learns and grows.

 

 

 

Religion doesn't create problems because it doesn't advance, it just sits there harking back to the "good old days", don't do this, don't do that, its "wrong". If we lived our lives by religion, the world would still be biblical, and people would do their father's job etc etc.

 

 

 

Religion has always been the prohibiter, and Science the enabler.

Proud owner of Questcape since 4th July 2009!! :D :D

 

sphinxor_86.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had there been no Judaism, Hitler would have found it much harder to justify what he was doing.

 

 

 

I don't believe that, as that kind of implies that he was justified in the first place. They were just a scapegoat. If Jews didn't exist, there were still other groups of people who he wanted exterminated anyway - polish, homosexuals, and anyone who didn't fit the "perfect" Aryan criteria. Religion shouldn't be to blame for the holocaust - twisted ideals should be.

 

 

 

Religion doesn't create problems because it doesn't advance, it just sits there harking back to the "good old days", don't do this, don't do that, its "wrong". If we lived our lives by religion, the world would still be biblical, and people would do their father's job etc etc.

 

 

 

That's an interesting view. Religion is the past, science is the future. Personally, I always thought it was best to keep the past and the future in mind when making decisions for today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't believe that, as that kind of implies that he was justified in the first place.

 

 

 

You misunderstand me. Hitler used it as justification, that doesn't mean that it really was justified. He used Judaism because it was easy for him to use, he could have quite easily chosen something else to segregate people, and then justified that. But because religious people stick to their ideals and principles - no matter what - it makes them easy to single out, attack and undermine.

Proud owner of Questcape since 4th July 2009!! :D :D

 

sphinxor_86.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very much enjoying the debate going on. It's not typical of the stereotypical 'Scape population characterized by the in-game players. I'd like to point out first, that (mind you, this essay states this very thing), it's not to be taken completely seriously. Every theory has it's fundamental flaws, which is why they're theories, and for something I cooked up at ~5:00AM based on some theoretical physics and quantum theory, I can imagine the number of cracks in this rock.

 

 

 

I do have to point out, though, in order to effectively criticize a literary work, you do, indeed, have to work within the parameters, or context, of the piece itself. You can't judge an Edgar Allen Poe piece from a bubbly perspective, or you'll have an emotional bias, or so to say, interfering with the context of the story. Similarly, many of the arguments made thus far, deal greatly in measurements, and physical laws, which this essay completely throws out in the explanation of the universe. There is no measurement, no physics, no deities: There is simply what exists. At the heart of everything, there are two planes, what exists, and what's become. The Earth exists, we exist. Measurement, mathematics, astronomy, language.. all belong to what has become, what's been propagated through existence itself. Where "Theory" delves, is how simply perceiving the former, somehow ends in the creation of the latter. Where's the proof to show that objects continue to exist, whether we accept it or not, other than accounts from people who see these objects stand the test of time? History proves that all scientific heritage, and religious texts, come from one living, breathing person, or another. "I think, therefore I am"... Who is to say you're the one doing the thinking? Both arguments are acceptable, as most people are free to be their own person, within lawful constraints, at a mere whim. At the same time, man-made laws curb your very existence as well, conforming you to an ideal individual.

 

 

 

Similarly, this theory is not only limited to sensory perception as some people seem to make out. Of course, sensory perception is our only link the the world as we know it, but this is simply data processed by the brain. We're also granted the ability to perceive our own sensory input, molding it, changing it. Most would call this logic, reason, but the truth is, there's probably no name for it. It's sort of a system that's backwards-compatible with itself, and ultimately affects the outcome of what exists, and what we perceive. Of course, we cannot see a God, yet, why does it exist as an entity? This is proof of this mechanism. Likewise, the fact, again, that sensory input is our only link to the world, further serves to prove the underlying point of "On Theory." The only way the human body can react to it's environment, is to move a muscle, or secrete from a gland, both of which can be vastly affected by alterations in sensory input, and general perception. And where does all this stem from? The brain. Which, along with the mind (yes, the two are different), control how you, and your environment, serve to function.

 

 

 

So, I ask again, without perception, where does that leave you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You neglect something - science bases it's propositions on repeated observation and testing, so the existence of natural laws doesn't involve faith. Sure, there may be that minuscule chance that our entire perception is somehow wrong, but science accepts the uncertainty as well. It's understanding and knowledge, not faith. I'm defining faith here as belief without evidence, but on the contrary science demands evidence.

 

 

 

=P This is going to sound rather vain:

 

In my religion I accept that I could be wrong about everything. I have a life time of physical evidence telling me I am right, but I understand that my interpretation may be wrong. I started out with an open mind and I keep an open mind, ensuring that I do not dismiss either religion or science based based on experience.

 

I do not demand evidence because demanding gets you no where, as Quantum Probability shows... sometimes you just have to believe that it will happen one way or the other and wait for the evidence to be provided. As with the Higgs Boson, the full evidence is lacking but scientists still believe in the particle because it makes the most logical sense.

 

If someone came along and conclusively proved that the Higgs Boson did not exist then many scientists would probably dive into depression, the same as if you conclusively disproved God.

 

 

 

Which when you think about it is no difference than a belief in God because you have had many accidents in your life, but have always been unscathed by them. You take experience and you interpret it subjectively.

 

 

 

Anyone can appreciate that gravity continuously works because we all experience it all the time, so it's not a far cry to assume that the force of gravity is a constant. Assumptions like these aren't like the personal experience that "proves" that god is real; any nut-job can claim that they've proven god is real or that they have evidence for some other concept, but that's them misusing the terms or using them too loosely based on highly questionable experiences.

 

 

 

In science we have to trust other people to be right. Take Cyanid for example, only a certain gene pool can smell it. We don't run them out of laboratories telling them that they do not understand the world and are clearly lying about their experience. We take it on board and we try to learn from it, and as such we discover a previously untapped source of diversity.

 

Religious experience on the other hand is treated with ridicule because some people can't experience it...I think there is a lot of fear there 'AHHHH science can't explain something, clearly they must be lying or wrong.'

 

Yup, we have come that far...

 

 

 

It is very easy to disprove a theory by calling whoever invented it something that sounds stupid. For example 'Professor Fay King earlier today discovered that the Sun orbits the Earth.' Immediately your reaction is 'Stupid name, and stupid idea, he is faking it.' That biases your reading of the article and so at the end you have 90% chance of thinking it was all bull.

 

 

 

You shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater here - evidence and facts can inform us all about the world. They're not a delusion at all. Even saying that evidence is a delusion is a contradiction in terms if you think about it. Added, a religion isn't merely something which seeks to explain the world. I recommend you read up on what religion is. I can assure you, science is definitely not one of them.

 

 

 

I agree that evidence and facts are important, but we should always treat them with skepticism since accepting all of them is out of the question. In the words of Albert Einstein 'Treat everything as a miracle or nothing as a miracle.'

 

 

 

And evidence is a subjective word, it implies proof, but evidence can be fabricated or be misleading. It may also be entirely delusional... for example the colour green, there is no proof that it is actually that colour, only the photoreceptors in our eyes tell us that it is, it could simply be that Humans have a genetic flaw that makes us see the inverse of everything...So everything sides with us because we started out with faulty equipment.

 

 

 

NO!!!! The more segregation that exists, the more that "us and them" mentality rears its head, and that only leads to conflict. BITTER conflict.

 

Hardly. US and THEM exists because one group seeks to exploit the other. If we lived in a world where we actually trusted our fellow human beings then I see no reason why that would develop. Also it is not strict segregation I propose, but rather than forcing people to accept things that they do not want, let them live freely in an area of land. Let there be free movement, and the ability to change over time, but stop 'missionary' type people who move around in order to get people to be like them.

 

Either we form into a gray paste by constant interaction, or we remain isolated and vibrantly coloured.

 

 

 

Almost all wars and genocide, with the exception of WW1 and 2, have been driven, justified and sanctioned by religion. The Inquisition, the crusades, the Moors, the ongoing palestinian-israeli conflict, conquest of the Americas, colonization in Africa, slavery for crying out loud was sanctioned by the Anglican church. Even (but to a lesser extent) the Holocaust. Had there been no Judaism, Hitler would have found it much harder to justify what he was doing.

 

 

 

Every war has been a war against oppression in some form or another:

 

Crusades were to liberate the Holy city of Jerusalem and to bring Christianity to the foolish Muslim Hoards(Not my view by the way)

 

Inquisition was not really a war or genocide... Any more than convicting people who have sex with children (We decide something in 'unnatural' and then arrest and destroy the beliefs of those individuals.) Because we see these people as dangerous it is alright for us to do this, just as it wa alright for the Spanish to stop the Heretics praying on the weak minded Serfs.(Again not my view)

 

The Moors are a race of people.... Not genocide or War

 

Palestine-Israel, oppression on both sides... The Jews want a homeland and the Muslims want their land back...

 

Conquest of the Americas was down to science more than Religion. The Religious lot wanted to convert them all, but science said 'I think therefore I am' which indicated that these people were subhuman.... Science strikes again.

 

Colonization of Africa, more political than anything else... Empires 'needed' to be built and Africa had resources and a technologically backwards army... go figure.

 

Slavery, nothing wrong with slavery to start with...It was actually begun as indenturing... which meant you signed an agreement, making you a slave for 6 years, and that paid for your trip across the atlantic. This was extended to Africa, but it was quickly realised it was easier just to kidnap them and ship them out. Which was Standard Practice for the Royal Navy of Britain as well though press gangs of their own people. The slavery became necessary to the American Economy...It would be like, in 200 years(if we are still here) arguing that Communism should replace Capitalism because Capitalism supported global warming.

 

The Holocaust was simply escalation... Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews from Germany, so he shipped them out, then other countries didn't want them, since taking a U-Turn on policy would not have worked there needed to be a 'better' way of dealing with the problem. Killing them was effective because it removed the problem entirely. Its not really any different than modern day treatment of Gypsies, we don't want you, nor do they, lets smash up your caravan and pass laws to stop you living anywhere, then you might buy a house and stop being a burden to society. (They aren't a burden but people assume they are...)

 

 

 

 

 

Most "weapons" that science has invented actually came from a practical use, any handheld weapon has its origins in animal hunting, a necessity for survival. It is not a gun that is evil, it is the person pulling the trigger. Gunpowder was a tonic for eternal life, not a weapon. TNT was originally invented to help miners obtain ore, once Alfred Nobel realized that people were using it destructively he came up with the Nobel prize to try and counter the problem.

 

 

 

No I still think that weapons came from killing things... Evil is subjective. Gunpowder is not the tonic of eternal life...If you have ever been to a cow field you discover that they have no survival instincts what so ever. You could probably kill them with a large stone... you do not need a rifle or bolt gun.

 

Added to that you do not really need to kill animals anyway, but as an omnivore I am not going to go down that path.

 

TNT may have been intended to do that but the fact is that it blows stuff up... it is not exactly a major leap of logic to blow humans up. Added to that miners did not need to have their lives made more easy, TNT replaced 20 miners with 10 miners and an explosives expert... which means less miners, meaning lower wages because there is a larger work pool. Science strikes again.

 

 

 

The nuclear bomb is the only exception, this was a weapon designed to be so from the start, and considering the extremely limited use as such, especially during the Cold War, I'd argue that people have realized the magnitude of the potential for disaster.

 

Having said that, scientists have found a use for it also, in Nuclear power, the thing that may eventually come to save the world.

 

Yeah... by killing it slowly instead... Nuclear power is not sensible.

 

How can you say the Nuclear bomb was extremely limited in its use... The USA was setting off one every three days! That is not limited use. The only thing stopping it from wide scale use is the fallout... People have not realised how destructive it is, they have just noticed that they could be affected by it too.

 

 

 

Science advances, and in that advancement, yes we create problems, but we also find solutions to those problems as the advancement continues. Science learns and grows.

 

 

 

Religion doesn't create problems because it doesn't advance, it just sits there harking back to the "good old days", don't do this, don't do that, its "wrong". If we lived our lives by religion, the world would still be biblical, and people would do their father's job etc etc.

 

 

 

Religion has always been the prohibiter, and Science the enabler.

 

 

 

Science is like trying to fix a broken eggshell with a mallet and a pack of C4, each time you do something you make it worse, and eventually you get annoyed and destroy the eggshell and move on to something else.

 

Religion is like trying to clean a floor with a toothbrush. It will take a very long time but when you are done every last inch has been covered.

 

 

 

people would do their father's job

 

So you are saying that there is science and there is religion, and under religion we would still be doing things traditionally... Whereas under science you claim that it is not sciences fault that our culture has gone to the dogs...

 

Please think carefully about your arguments.

 

 

 

That's an interesting view. Religion is the past, science is the future. Personally, I always thought it was best to keep the past and the future in mind when making decisions for today.

 

The best way forwards always makes use of all the resources at your disposal, not just one or two.

 

 

 

I do have to point out, though, in order to effectively criticize a literary work, you do, indeed, have to work within the parameters, or context, of the piece itself. You can't judge an Edgar Allen Poe piece from a bubbly perspective, or you'll have an emotional bias, or so to say, interfering with the context of the story

 

 

 

Of course you can. As someone once said 'Poetry doesn't belong to the ones who wrote it, but to those who need it.' If I read something then it is my view on that thing, not the authors, that I am left with.

 

Furthermore it is the author's job to make sure they get their ideas across, it is not the readers job to find them.

 

 

 

 

 

There is no measurement, no physics, no deities: There is simply what exists

 

Which makes for a poor debate. I think all of us (or most of us at least) agree that we exist, it is the nature of existence that we must call into question.

 

But on that topic 'Where does a rain storm begin?' it is a question I have had for ages. If you are walking is there a line that you cross into a rainstorm? Is there a specified area for the rain? The simple answer is yes, where-ever it is raining, but the more complicated argument wants to know exact where, is there and exact, measurable line between rain and no rain.

 

Is there an exact measurable time between life and death?

 

 

 

We're also granted the ability to perceive our own sensory input, molding it, changing it. Most would call this logic, reason, but the truth is, there's probably no name for it.

 

Or imagination... ;)

 

 

 

And where does all this stem from? The brain

 

Actually the majority comes from the central nervous system of which the brain is only a small facet of. An underlying flaw in your argument is that you argue that we control our own bodies, and that is simply not the case, we have influence yes... But realistically we control only a small percentage of the body... growth, the main and unending part of the human body is beyond our control, pain is beyond our control as is pleasure and sensation. We have only a very limited influence over them, where as our bodies have total influence over them... if our bodies were to suddenly develop their own intelligence then they could subject us to all sorts of pain and pleasure, reducing us to pets, entirely enslaved to our masters.

 

 

 

The flaw stems from your belief in intelligence, where as the fact of the matter is that we are not intelligent beings, we are thinking beings, and there is a world of difference between the two. Consider that intelligence is the ability to reason and comprehend, while thinking is the ability to perceive and generate responses.

 

Consider how many apples have fallen in the history of Earth, and then consider that it was only Newton who showed intelligence to comprehend gravity.

 

We are only intelligent beings for seconds at a time, with maybe year long gaps between them. The majority of the time(If TV didn't exist) we are thinking beings, with some of the time simply being 'being time' where we are not perceiving or generating responses... Thanks to TV, and to some extent school, this has become the majority of the time... We just shut down our brains and stare distantly at something.

 

'Lower' animals have much longer periods of being time, with faint stints of thinking and very occasionally intelligence.

 

Take, for example, mice. For the majority of the time they are simply eating, requiring no brain input. Occasionally they have to demonstrate awareness, such as navigating a maze. Then in the most rare situations, usually as a result of months of work, mice show the ability to problem solve.

 

Chickens on the other hand show signs of thinking but not intelligence:

 

An experiment was conducted with three chickens, in separate rooms... In the first room there was a lever, and every time it was pressed the chicken would get food. In the second room there was a lever, and whenever it was pressed twice the chicken would get food. In the third room there was a lever hooked up to a random number generator, and each press generated a random number and if that random number was odd then they chicken would get fed.

 

After a few days the scientists turned off the food feed. The first chicken realised within a few minutes that there would be no more food and gave up, the second chicken gave up after a little while longer. The final chicken never gave up.

 

 

 

So they show the ability to perceive, but not to reason...If there is no pattern to the process then they cannot reason that the process has stopped.

 

 

 

Now imagine that it was three humans. The first human would probably perceive that lack of food and guess what had happened on the third attempt, the second would probably guess on the fifth or sixth attempt, assuming they had done something wrong which was why they were not getting fed... The third human would probably give up after hours of pressing the level, because they know it is random, so they might just be unlucky.

 

Where is my proof? Well let us take games of chance. When there is no pattern we will play until we have lost everything or until we are ready to give up.

 

If you notice some sort of pattern... say that the person to your right wins, then the person to your left, then the dealer and then it repeats, you would give up as soon as you were sure it was not just random.

 

If the pattern was more complex it would take longer.

 

 

 

So, I ask again, without perception, where does that leave you?

 

 

 

With the ability to reason. I suggest(and no doubt some scientist somewhere wants to do it) that you put a baby in a sensory deprivation tank for a number of years. It is most probable though that the child would not develop the ability to reason because they will not have anything to work from. So they would really need that spark of intelligence to get them going...Of course you would need to keep the baby asleep inside the womb and when it was born... which would be difficult...Or of course you could gene the baby not to be able to perceive.

 

The obvious flaw though is that without perception you could not communicate, so anything that we could learn from them would be lost. :roll:

 

Added to that the moral minefield of doing this experiment #-o .

Well I knew you wouldn't agree. I know how you hate facing facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archimage, you're living in a fantasy world where nothing is real.

 

 

 

Evidence is not subjective. Evidence is objective, it is the interpretation of evidence that becomes subjective.

 

 

 

During the day it is clear that the sun moves across the sky, the interpretation of what that means has been different in the past. We now have MUCH MORE evidence that the correct/most likely interpretation is that the Earth's rotation relative to the sun is what creates the effect of the sun moving across the sky.

 

 

 

You clearly do not understand what the Higg's Boson is all about, go and do some group theory, the some electro-weak unification, and then you can comment. It has got nothing to do with gravity. And just because we haven't discovered it yet, it does not mean that it does not exist, and if we do not find it, it doesn't mean that our theories are wrong, it just means we've supplemented them incorrectly.

 

 

 

Quantum field theory (QFT) is accurate to about 15 decimal places and has so far been successful with every experimental test performed on it. But we know that it is not yet complete, as there are things it does not explain. In QFT all particles are massless, but we measure them to have mass, so we know that these two have to be reconciled. The Higg's Boson *may* be the solution, or it may not be. I personally don't think that the Higgs mechanism is the correct one, but if they do find it, I'll be happy to say that it is. Scientists favour the Higgs option because it is the easiest.

 

 

 

Scientists would not "dive into a depression" if someone conclusively proved that the Higgs did not exist, some would be disappointed, but most would be excited by it, because it would mean a rethink, a hotbed of new ideas. An experimental result that comes out of the blue is the BEST thing for science, it creates progress.

 

 

 

If you have survived accidents, all you have done is been lucky. Its blind chance if you die or live on a lot of accidents. I myself have had a car accident and survived, that doesn't make me more malleable to belief in some god.

 

 

 

Science is objective, but scientists are not. We often cling to theories that we like, or feel comfortable with. I hate quantum theory, but I am forced to accept it because it provides testable predictions that give correct answers.

 

 

 

Green does exist, its a particular wavelength of light!! It doesn't matter how we see it, it will always have that wavelength.

 

 

 

Either we form into a gray paste by constant interaction, or we remain isolated and vibrantly coloured.

 

 

What rubbish! Constant interaction is what creates the vibrancy, exchange of ideas, culture, technology, food, history, knowledge.... etc. Isolation would result in the grey paste, no new input, people stagnating in their own filth.

 

 

 

If we had machines to do everything people wouldn't have to work and could pursue whatever they wanted to pursue, money wouldn't be an issue.

 

 

 

Nuclear power is perfectly sensible, when we develop fusion power stations, they would power us for an indefinite amount of time with no environmental side-effects.

 

 

 

Archimage, you have this 'interpretation' of science that is way off the mark. You have probably not experienced science properly. I have grown up in a religious environment and family, and I can't stand it, I see the ineptitude of religion and how inadequate it is for the job that it professes to do.

Proud owner of Questcape since 4th July 2009!! :D :D

 

sphinxor_86.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.