robojoel Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Religeon=stories people make up about something they dont understand Ancient man >'Sun gah what the **** is that? ITS A GOD IT MAKES CROPS GROW'> blah blahblahblahblahblahblahblah> various religons bible koran superstition etc Modern man> oh hang on we have worked 99.9 percent of it out, its not a god after all, its nuclear reactions and natural selection, look here is a trillion peices of proof worked out and evidenced by the most intelligent people throughout history But we still have to hang out with our retarded brothers and sisters they are slowly dying out though thankfully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Religeon=stories people make up about something they dont understand Ancient man >'Sun gah what the **** is that? ITS A GOD IT MAKES CROPS GROW'> blah blahblahblahblahblahblahblah> various religons bible koran superstition etc Modern man> oh hang on we have worked 99.9 percent of it out, its not a god after all, its nuclear reactions and natural selection, look here is a trillion peices of proof worked out and evidenced by the most intelligent people throughout history But we still have to hang out with our retarded brothers and sisters they are slowly dying out though thankfully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 People can believe what they like but it doesn't mean we have to respect those beliefs. If you believe in one of the thousands of Gods out there then fine but it doesn't entitle you to dismiss science, when it is very clear that you know nothing about it . The evidence for evolution is overwhelming . From DNA , genome sequencing , the fossil records and more. No real scientist is doubting that the variety of life we see today is due to natural selection and genetic mutation . It is one of the most credible scientific theories we have . We know more about it than we do about gravity . Intelligent design is not science . It doesn't follow where the evidence leads. It has an end goal already in place and then tries to fudge the books in order to get there . To suggest that the higher intelligence hinted at in this pseudoscientific babble isn't in fact God , and more specifically the Abrahamic God is absolute folly. The main argument from the I.D. morons is that life is far too complex to have not been designed by an intelligent designer . Completely ignoring that this designer would in turn be far more complex and would in turn lead to an infinite regression of superior designers. It is hypocrisy and intellectual bankruptcy of the highest order . If you need the emotional crutch of faith (which is technically belief without evidence) then that doesn't give you the right to dismiss facts because it upsets you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted May 12, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 12, 2012 As per normal on this topic I totally agree with Brumerican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 As per normal on this topic I totally agree with Brumerican. I also entirely agree with Brumerican... a fine post. I've posted this many times before, but I repeat again: I thought I'd grown up in a post religious society and remember the first time I ever saw Dawkins on TV, he talked about the believers "hanging on by their fingernails". Trouble is, for a variety of reasons, we are today facing more problems from these morons than we used too, and we tolerate them at our peril. The time has surely come to withdraw our 'respect' for this rubbish they peddle, by pointing out at every possible opportunity, what a bunch of ignorant arseholes they ALL are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted May 12, 2012 Administrator Share Posted May 12, 2012 I have been reading Focus magazine and New Scientist for a few years now. The idea that our universe is alone is nearly redundant. The Multiverse appears to be a very real and testable theory by all accounts . I look forward to learning about these. I don't suppose you've got any links to anything peer reviewed? Given the nature of this thread, I'm not going to take things on faith. A few months ago it was all still propositions, nothing you'd call a working theory. I'm surprised and impressed that they already have testifiable hypotheses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I have been reading Focus magazine and New Scientist for a few years now. The idea that our universe is alone is nearly redundant. The Multiverse appears to be a very real and testable theory by all accounts . I look forward to learning about these. I don't suppose you've got any links to anything peer reviewed? Given the nature of this thread, I'm not going to take things on faith. A few months ago it was all still propositions, nothing you'd call a working theory. I'm surprised and impressed that they already have testifiable hypotheses. Well string theory predicts 10 to the power of 500 potential universes I believe but that is only a mathmatical prediction. As for actual physical tests , well apparently there have been quite a few observational tests carried out in the last 12 months. The issue of NewScientist I have entitled ULTIMATE GUIDE TO THE MULTIVERSE has quite a lot of info on it . It is dated 26th November 2011 if you can get it on back order. Just google "first observation test of the 'multiverse'" and there is tonnes of stuff from reputable sites about what is currently going on . I think most notably, there is a team of UK physicists who have been looking for disk like collision marks in the cosmic microwave background radiation. (fender benders with neighbouring universes basically) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted May 12, 2012 Administrator Share Posted May 12, 2012 That's cool. I'll stay away from the New Scientist for this as it's not peer reviewed, but I'll take another dig around. Hopefully I can find something somewhere. Multiple universes does not mean that time existed before our universe though. Time is just a dimension in spacetime and spacetime is an integral part of our universe. You'd still need to hypothesise some kind of causal sequence which existed outside of any particular universe. I assume that multiverse theory allows for encapsulated universes whereby extra-universal "time" would be defined by the parent universe? Time for some study I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Nah. Much too hard. It's the work of God, I tell ye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 That's cool. I'll stay away from the New Scientist for this as it's not peer reviewed, but I'll take another dig around. Hopefully I can find something somewhere. Multiple universes does not mean that time existed before our universe though. Time is just a dimension in spacetime and spacetime is an integral part of our universe. You'd still need to hypothesise some kind of causal sequence which existed outside of any particular universe. I assume that multiverse theory allows for encapsulated universes whereby extra-universal "time" would be defined by the parent universe? Time for some study I think. New Scientist isn't supposed to be peer reviewed in the same way a scientifically published journal would be. It's just a glossy mag that focuses on science. It does contain articles on stuff that has been peer reviwed mind you . I am working on my own experiments at the moment but it's all very hush hush . When my own particle accelerator goes live in June it may cause a blackout in the West Midlands so it's all very much on the down low at this stage . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Reality is just the collapse of the wave function . All other universes represent all the other possibilites of a wave function expressed at different stages . It's easy . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Much of that is post on poster, and against the site's guidelines, Martin. One night, a man had a dream. He dreamed he was walking along the beach with the Lord. Across the sky flashed scenes from his life. For each scene, he noticed two sets of footprints in the sand. One belonged to him, and the other to the Lord. When the last scene of his life flashed before him, he looked back at the footprints in the sand, and he noticed that many times along the path of his life, there was only one set of footprints. He also noticed that it happened at the very lowest and saddest times of his life. This really bothered him, and he questioned the Lord about it: “Lord, you said that once I decided to follow you, you would walk with me all the way. Yet I have noticed during the most troublesome times of my life, there’s only one set of footprints. I don’t understand why, when I needed you most, you would leave me.” The Lord replied: “My precious precious child, I love you, and would never leave you. During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, that must have been when I was appearing on… Junior Kickstart… Apologies, feeling a bit grumpy last night. You can always rely on a bit of HMHB to cheer you up though! (Although if you are going to clamp down on Post on Poster, Bicks started it a few posts previously! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Our parent universe is clearly just other humans, who wanted to know where they came from and so ran a highly complex computer programme to see what happened. We will do the same and it will repeat ad infinitum. Rumour has it parent humans wanted to run a programme with an omnipotent, omnipresent god, but it took up too much disk space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted May 12, 2012 Administrator Share Posted May 12, 2012 Reality is just the collapse of the wave function . All other universes represent all the other possibilites of a wave function expressed at different stages . It's easy . You can't have a stage of a collapse of a wave function. You've just proven that free will can't exist; "god" caused everything to have happened by observing it at the end of time (not the beginning). I think we've drifted into philosophy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 12, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 12, 2012 You've just proven that free will can't exist... It doesn't, but it's nowt to do with "God". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted May 12, 2012 Administrator Share Posted May 12, 2012 So who did collapse the wave function of the universe? BTW, I agree completely. There is no free will. Decisions are made on the basis of chemical changes in the brain in response to stimuli. The brain is a chaotic system and therefore incredibly hard to model, but the illusion of free will is simply a by product of chemical reactions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 I'll use that in my rape case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Reality is just the collapse of the wave function . All other universes represent all the other possibilites of a wave function expressed at different stages . It's easy . You can't have a stage of a collapse of a wave function. You've just proven that free will can't exist; "god" caused everything to have happened by observing it at the end of time (not the beginning). I think we've drifted into philosophy I am no physicist or philosopher . I am merely energy slowed down into matter . Feynman diagrams show all the possibilities of a quantum event . We live in a universe where they went in X direction. In another universe they went in Y direction and so on . By stages I just mean each unique path . The wave function is collapsed by an observer and they don't have to be sentient. The observer could be a photon . I don't believe in free will either to be honest which does raise some tough questions about crime and punishment. "So Mr Smith why did you murder that man " ? "Because of the big bang your honour " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted May 12, 2012 Administrator Share Posted May 12, 2012 Energy condenses into matter. Energy doesn't have a velocity, only a potential, although it can be said to have a vibration. But I know what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumerican Posted May 12, 2012 Share Posted May 12, 2012 Like I said...I'm no fizzacist. I'm an evalushunry biolajist . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts