Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

Who would have thought that the universe could have possibly started from a small area of the always unknowable quantum world suddenly (and randomly) deciding there was going to be a huge amount of energy, literally splitting an area of nothingness smaller than the eye can see, into the a universe so big we'll never know exactly how big it is?

Actually from what I understood of the reading I did... if we lived during the time of the "big bang" we'd never notice it because we'd still be relatively the same size as we are now and the universe would still seem insanely huge.  But I generally disagree with the whole idea anyway and think the "evidence" isn't really evidence, but "convenient data."   I've already discussed my disgruntled view on that so I'm not getting back into it again.

[Glowcat]

it sounds to me like we're regressing into the idea of happiness as the supreme goal of life. I don't know all the specifics of the argument, but I vaguely remember "would you rather be a happy housefly or a miserable Socrates?"

If I had to choose between the two, I'd pick the latter. Of course, I think it would be even better to be a happy Socrates. The more we learn the more awesome things get.

That's still a type of Hedonism, specifically the qualitative form supported by John Stuart Mill.

[malimbar04]

it sounds to me like we're regressing into the idea of happiness as the supreme goal of life. I don't know all the specifics of the argument, but I vaguely remember "would you rather be a happy housefly or a miserable Socrates?"

If I had to choose between the two, I'd pick the latter. Of course, I think it would be even better to be a happy Socrates. The more we learn the more awesome things get.

That's still a type of Hedonism, specifically the qualitative form supported by John Stuart Mill.

Is this a history class? I'm not going to suddenly go and read all of John Stuart Mill's opinions in order to comment on that, so I'm not sure what it adds. What do YOU think?

[CoughDrop]

But if blind belief in an organised religion brings somebody to peace and happiness, including an understanding of the universe and their place in it, how is it worse than alternatives which give the same results?

Because it would most likely be a fallacy. That is enough for me. Though, it really depends on the preferences of the person. Preferences which are, for the most part, determined by their individual's surroundings (which religion takes a part in).

Now, I could definitely accept a world without religion, but there are still people who will come up with their own ideas and they will continue to try to teach those to others so I think religion would eventually work it's way back into society through simple human ingenuity.  Parents will go back to indoctrinating their children and the world will return to what it is.  The only way to avoid that is to successfully answer each individual's questions in life in the most honest and educated way possible and let them know when conjecture is being conveyed.  Unfortunately, parents are not good at telling their kids to behave without using Santa, God, Karma, or some other "magical" being or thought process.  Sometimes it simply takes too long to explain to and develop them properly.

The average person is proportionally much more educated than they would have been 2000 years ago. The main religions (those with the most followers) are around 2000 years old. Seeing as education mostly trumps religion, I have a feeling that an educated society without religion would breed quite a smaller percentage of religious followers over time.

[malimbar04]

Who would have thought that the universe could have possibly started from a small area of the always unknowable quantum world suddenly (and randomly) deciding there was going to be a huge amount of energy, literally splitting an area of nothingness smaller than the eye can see, into the a universe so big we'll never know exactly how big it is?

Actually from what I understood of the reading I did... if we lived during the time of the "big bang" we'd never notice it because we'd still be relatively the same size as we are now and the universe would still seem insanely huge.  But I generally disagree with the whole idea anyway and think the "evidence" isn't really evidence, but "convenient data."   I've already discussed my disgruntled view on that so I'm not getting back into it again.

I'm confused. How could it both explain why the universe is gigantic (and expanding relative to us), while also being irrelavent since it would seem just as big if it were really small?

And the difference between "evidence" and "convenient data" is only a matter of perspective. We can theoretically prove the big bang theory false, and anyone who did so would be applauded tremendously. There is little motivation to keep it as it is, and I'm sure the alternative that better supports the evidence would be even cooler. It's not convenient anyways, as it disproves the previous theory of the steady state universe.

[ECrownofFire]

it sounds to me like we're regressing into the idea of happiness as the supreme goal of life. I don't know all the specifics of the argument, but I vaguely remember "would you rather be a happy housefly or a miserable Socrates?"

If I had to choose between the two, I'd pick the latter. Of course, I think it would be even better to be a happy Socrates. The more we learn the more awesome things get.

Who would have thought that the universe could have possibly started from a small area of the always unknowable quantum world suddenly (and randomly) deciding there was going to be a huge amount of energy, literally splitting an area of nothingness smaller than the eye can see, into the a universe so big we'll never know exactly how big it is? What's even cooler is that this doesn't come from within the mind, but instead it's what the universe is telling us. It's not a vaguely human-centered universe, and it's not whispering into ears or causing an internal warmth to confirm. It is instead calling to us through evidence, over and over again, like a parent trying to teach their child how to eat food when they're stuck moving peas around with a plastic butterknife.

What I'm trying to say is that (a) happiness, peace, and so forth are bad reasons to believe something, and (b) the way things really work (with evidence to back it up) are so often insanely more amazing.

I agree with you there, actually (the big bang is an unknown, and unimportant to me though). But understanding how things work brings you happiness and peace. I don't believe what I do to get happiness or peace, I believe it to understand my self and the uni-/multiverse (whatever it is, unimportant). I'd pick a miserable Socrates over a happy housefly any day as well. My favorite saying relating religion and science is probably relevant here: "religion is the why, science is the how". You can be scientific and religious, they're not mutually exclusive.


Just noticed this, the asari race of Mass Effect has some weird parallels to the Triple Goddess of Wicca. Maiden, matron and matriarch, interesting... and a bit strangely coincidental.

[Glowcat]

Is this a history class? I'm not going to suddenly go and read all of John Stuart Mill's opinions in order to comment on that, so I'm not sure what it adds. What do YOU think?

Why the aggression? I was simply pointing out that "the goal of happiness" was more nuanced than simply pleasure. I gave out Stuart's name in case you wanted to investigate philosophical opinions on your own and see whether they helped expand your own beliefs.

I would say that qualitative Hedonism does well enough to describe my own views on a moral goal for humanity. Tied into that is a mission to increase our understanding of not only the universe but ourselves as well.

[Siquo]

Screw happiness. It's all about survival. Knowing your shit (aka Science) helps tremendously in surviving. On the other hand, having a close-knit group that stands up for eachother (this is where religion comes in), helps tremendously as well. The Enlightenment gave us Humanism to supplant the religion-based social coherence, but I'm indoctrinated with Humanism so my opinion does not count


As to wiccan sacrifices, I meant that going through all the rituals just to inflict the possibility of pain on others was too much of a hassle for a 13-yr old OTOH, I'm pretty well versed in it's customs, beliefs, and structures (or lack thereof), and it can be adhered to either pretty relaxed and benign or strict and zealous, just like any other religion...

[ECrownofFire]

Screw happiness. It's all about survival. Knowing your shit (aka Science) helps tremendously in surviving. On the other hand, having a close-knit group that stands up for eachother (this is where religion comes in), helps tremendously as well. The Enlightenment gave us Humanism to supplant the religion-based social coherence, but I'm indoctrinated with Humanism so my opinion does not count


As to wiccan sacrifices, I meant that going through all the rituals just to inflict the possibility of pain on others was too much of a hassle for a 13-yr old OTOH, I'm pretty well versed in it's customs, beliefs, and structures (or lack thereof), and it can be adhered to either pretty relaxed and benign or strict and zealous, just like any other religion...

Inflict pain on people? What happened to the Wiccan Rede?

So it was mostly just a matter of "this is a waste of my time" then?

[Siquo]

Inflict pain on people? What happened to the Wiccan Rede?

So it was mostly just a matter of "this is a waste of my time" then?

I was 13 (schmonsequences), and perfectly aware that it was just "an advice". An older wiccan woman who "taught" me on what passed for the internet in those days was strongly opposing my abuse of her religion/magic. I gave up because it was too much trouble for something I could do by hand anyway

Not a waste of time, I've been looking into stuff like wiccanism and many other schools of thought, old and new, for a long while now. Each one teaches me something new, and allows me to see more of "that other guy". Even though I don't have to agree with someone else, at least I can understand their point of view. And that skill/knowledge has benefited me greatly later in life.

[malimbar04]

Screw happiness. It's all about survival. Knowing your shit (aka Science) helps tremendously in surviving. On the other hand, having a close-knit group that stands up for eachother (this is where religion comes in), helps tremendously as well. The Enlightenment gave us Humanism to supplant the religion-based social coherence, but I'm indoctrinated with Humanism so my opinion does not count

I love this!

Someone once asked me what the purpose to life is. I told him something along the lines of "It's a bad question". I then ended up in a fight with my wife, who told me thought I told him there was no meaning. Upon reflection he was probably trying to shut me up, since I was explaining Schrödinger's cat at the time

[Andir]

I'm confused. How could it both explain why the universe is gigantic (and expanding relative to us), while also being irrelavent since it would seem just as big if it were really small?

Without getting into too much detail, the idea is that the space between universes is "stretching" and anything within that space stretches with it (light, etc.) They say it's expanding because that's easier to understand for most people but all the explanations I read on it say it's not expanding as much as it's warping and stretching and any attempt to measure distances between galaxies would end up the same because the light traveling through the void between galaxies is changed because of the "expansion."  There's convenient "handwaving" that says you can't accurately measure the distances between galaxies because of this effect.  (The common example is laying a tape measure between galaxies... it would always read the same distance, but if you pulled in the tape [and miraculously bypassing this effect] the tape would be longer than when you put it out there originally.)  The general consensus is that we are not "visibly" moving apart, but the space between is is getting more distant.  Add this to the idea that all objects are supposedly "moving" away from each other, there's supposedly no centerpoint where you can point to and say... that's where it started... so they conveniently ignore that question as "not important."  By all current models, our galaxy is the center and everything is expanding away from us.  (as they say all other galaxies see us, and the galaxies around them, expanding away from them.)

[malimbar04]

I'm confused. How could it both explain why the universe is gigantic (and expanding relative to us), while also being irrelavent since it would seem just as big if it were really small?

Without getting into too much detail, the idea is that the space between universes is "stretching" and anything within that space stretches with it (light, etc.) They say it's expanding because that's easier to understand for most people but all the explanations I read on it say it's not expanding as much as it's warping and stretching and any attempt to measure distances between galaxies would end up the same because the light traveling through the void between galaxies is changed because of the "expansion."  There's convenient "handwaving" that says you can't accurately measure the distances between galaxies because of this effect.  (The common example is laying a tape measure between galaxies... it would always read the same distance, but if you pulled in the tape [and miraculously bypassing this effect] the tape would be longer than when you put it out there originally.)  The general consensus is that we are not "visibly" moving apart, but the space between is is getting more distant.  Add this to the idea that all objects are supposedly "moving" away from each other, there's supposedly no centerpoint where you can point to and say... that's where it started... so they conveniently ignore that question as "not important."  By all current models, our galaxy is the center and everything is expanding away from us.  (as they say all other galaxies see us, and the galaxies around them, expanding away from them.)

Ah, I do remember something about this. Perhaps you know more than I do here, but I thought it was a little different than what you're describing. I thought everything was visibly moving apart because of expanding space. Thus if we crunched it back down, we would have the distinct impression of everything moving toward us still (until, you know, things collided with us). What you're describing though sounds more like a funky version of a steady state, as it wouldn't matter whether the universe was expanding or contracting, since we'd never know the difference. Is what I'm saying makign any sense? because now I'm not so sure. Maybe I need to ask Neil DeGrasse Tyson....

[Siquo]

I then ended up in a fight with my wife, who told me thought I told him there was no meaning. Upon reflection he was probably trying to shut me up, since I was explaining Schrödinger's cat at the time

"There is no meaning" is actually a really constructive way of looking at life and the universe, as long as you realise that the fact that it's meaningless is also meaningless. Humans are meaningmaking machines, and we like to give meaning to Everything. That means you can pick and choose your own meaning for everything, if you can make that subconscious activity a conscious one (which is hard).

[Il Palazzo]

I thought everything was visibly moving apart because of expanding space. Thus if we crunched it back down, we would have the distinct impression of everything moving toward us still (until, you know, things collided with us). What you're describing though sounds more like a funky version of a steady state, as it wouldn't matter whether the universe was expanding or contracting, since we'd never know the difference.

You're right. The theory states that the universe is (measurably, S=V/H; S-distance, V-velocity, mesurable via redshift, H-Hubble's constant) expanding due to the stretching of space between clusters of matter(i.e.galaxies), while the galaxies themselves are not stretching, due to gravity "holding" the local space together.

Hubble’s law is consistent with a general expansion of the space between galaxies (or galactic clusters), and is not a particular characteristic of the galaxies (clusters) themselves. This statement means that the galaxies themselves are not changing in any way; only the regions between them are expanding with time. If the expansion is run backward (as can be done with mathematics), then it would appear that, very long ago, all the matter of the universe was once compacted into a relatively small volume from which it was hurled outward by some titanic force. This idea is the basis for the Big Bang.

I believe Andir just got it wrong, as we would surely notice the difference in the size of the universe, should we get back to the beginning of time. The density would be much higher, eventually reaching infinity(at the singularity), yet despite this, the total "amount" of space could very well be infinite even then.