Dangerous line of thinking indeed… hence why we have terrorists killing peope for their beliefs. Didn’t say it was a saintly thought, just that it is there. What people choose to do is completely up to them.
On what is science: we have differing definitions I think. I view science as nothing more than a tool to observe and predict the empiracal world, not the actual foundation or laws of that world. You seem to hold science more as the actual rules of the universe instead of the tools by which we observe those rules.
On proof and faith: well, the only thing I can say again… how do you know that man won’t fly? Just because a man falling from a plane has yet to suddenly fly does not mean that it will never happen. It is an assumption based on prior experience. I tend to err on the practical-avoid being splattered on the pavement-side of the equation, but I recognise that such an occurrence might not be set for all eternity.
On spiritual authority: that is if you believe in a uniform, one universe existence in which all parties are subject to. Maybe we each live in our own little universe that just happens to bump into other universe’s… technically it would then be true that God is the sole creator and lord of someone’s universe while there is a plethora of nimble twins awaiting me in my harem of an after-life. Also, you are simply basing such assumptions of contradiction on a limited and finite persepective. Who is to really say that an infinite, eternal “over-soul” or whatever does not contain many facets that seem contradictory but yet co-exist?
Last: there is a difference between true belief and actual certainty. When I say “know” in this context, I am talking about the utter certainty that simply is. No proof, no evidence, not even an argument to convince… it simply is. Not every part of my spirituality is “known” in this sense. There are many things I simply believe yet still struggle with doubt and continually must re-affirm my faith in that belief. That is not what I mean by “knowing”.
Your examples are simply dealing with beliefs and mere thinking. I am not talking about believing or thinking about something. I am talking about knowing something. As I said, there is a significant and infinite difference between truly believing and knowing. A belief is something you choose. A true belief is something that has been proven to be right, or at least most probable. The knowledge I am talking about simply is. There is no choice in the matter, one simply knows.
I understand the difficuliy of the concept. I guess the closest analogy would be to how “religious” experience has been “explained”: to those who have had the experience there is no doubt, no question… but for those who have not, the doubts and questions persist. It is a rather poor analogy, but unless you “know”, such a concept cannot really be explained. It simply is.
Anyway: who said this universe was sane? Didn’t you know? A jilted and jealous yandere twin murdered her brother and his lover: the blood from his wounds formed the planets, the blood and tear of his lover, still longing for him, became the animals to share eternity, while the guilt ridden tears of the sister formed the ocean while the shattered blade still twinkles in the blackness of her grief that is the infinite emptiness of space? I thought that was common knowledge around these parts… sheesh.
You bring up an interesting point that is an active area of study as I understand it. Before I start though, I’ll give you fair warning that this is something I don’t know a huge amount about. In any case, as you probably learned while in school, there are four proven fundamental forces: gravity, nuclear strong, nuclear weak, and electromagnetism. As I understand it, research seems to indicate that at the very beginning of the Universe, a “superforce” existed. The first of the forces to split off and become separate was gravity. After that, what was left of the “superforce” broke in to two new forces: the nuclear strong, and a force called the electroweak. Some time after that, the electroweak force finally split in to the electromagnetism and nuclear weak forces we know. Keep in mind that all of this occurred in an extremely short period; so short that the amount of time elapsed between the birth of the universe and gravity splitting off is 10 to the -43 power. For the complete timeline, see this site: http://www.knowledgetreeproject.org/bir … iverse.htm
Now, building on this theory is the theory of the possibility of one of the forces we know splitting in to two new forces. So Kabraxal, research indicates the possibility (though not probability) of the scientific laws we know now changing in the future. If such a thing took place, it would be a VERY quick death for all of mankind, as the way our bodies are constructed depends on the current state of the fundamental forces. Of course, the extinguishing of mankind would be the least of the problems, as the entire universe depends on these forces.
Gamma ray bursts, novas, asteroids, cancer… like I need anymore doomsday worries! Thanks a lot…
In all seriousness though, that is quite interesting. At least it is better than the odd string and M theories I have researched. One thing about this specific idea though, is that it does lend itself to the prospect of limiting an entity and creating boundaries. It is reminiscent of the idea of a boundless, infinite, and timeless entity “willingly” seperating itself (or blowing itself up) in order to create an existence of boundaries, limitiations, and time.
I just have to ask this… but how come I can come to a forum, dedicated to erotica, and have a far more intelligent and in-depth discussion with people than I could with my master’s program? This was the last place to expect deep scientific, philosophical, and pyschological discussion. And they say erotica is evil. I say it inspires us all to greater things. Prudes…
Maybe I should channel Narg… I mean I do have this wonderful set of leather braces, flogs, and a beautiful pair of silver pincers that I haven’t used yet :twisted: .
But then that is probably because I haven’t gotten the knack of “safe” words yet :? .
I agree with Narg for the most part however , when the universe under goes the big rip -matter ,humans ,and yes science will be destroyed. Even the laws which govern the universe will be destroyed , nothing shall escape the coming purge .
Right now mathematicians must battle deist , science has sounded theism’s death knell .
Humans evolved kin selection and reciprocal altruism . Empathy is merely a by product of these traits . A true quantifiable good and evil …sorry doesn’t exist.
Contrary to what japanese shoujo comics and country western songs would have you believe -the biological purpose of life is to fuck -love is merely a great aid for that.
Natural selection depends only time -whoever fucks the most ;the longest wins .thats just the way it works.
Sorry you feel that way about love… which means I whole heartedly and vehemently disagree with you of it being a physical by-product of evolutionary propogation.
Its true that some may view the only purpose of life is to reproduce, but I have to disagree with you there mate. I dont think love is just an aid to ensure species survival.
Are you sure about that last statement? I thought natural selection was more complex. Do note that I am not a Bio nerd :oops:
I call the tools the Scientific Method. Science doesn’t observe and predict - the Scientific Method does. The fruits of our labors is technology. Science itself is the information, which in turn is simply an explanation of what is.
It’s not based on an assumption: it’s based on a rule. Gravity for one; lack of the necessary kinetic energy for another. The man doesn’t plummet to his death because we want or expect him to fall ¬ñ it’s because fundamental forces of nature cause him to fall. These fundamental forces of nature do not change for anyone or anything.
A two ton plane that travels the sky does not defy nature: it uses the laws of nature to determine the means in which it can fly, such as aerodynamics and lift. That’s why it can take off and glide through the air, while a naked 150 pound man will not. The rules dictate what you can and cannot do. Science basically tells us what those rules are and why. Talk of defying the rules is the realm of what if - "what if a naked 150 pound man could fly under his own power?
Well a lot of things, but it ain’t going to happen unless that naked man was genetically altered to be a bird or had cybernetic rocket feet or something of the sort. In which case he didn’t defy the laws - he did something to accommodate them.
There’s a whole lot of nonsensical maybes in that sort of answer: maybe we’re all jellybeans in an empty fishbowl. My contention is that your argument validates the incredibly absurd in equal proportion. Since you cannot disprove we are jellybeans in a fishbowl, we are jellybeans in a fishbowl.
How do you know it’s an assumption? How do you know it’s finite? How do you know it’s only a prospective? That’s why I argue that proof is needed. To simply determine what’s real or fantasy. Even in your own belief you have to prove elements of it to yourself, otherwise you’d believe anything.
Do you just know I’m wrong? Well I counter that I just know you’re wrong. Well we obviously can’t both be right. How do you know that someone else is wrong? That’s not universal ¬ñ that’s what you know. I’m not saying it’s wrong to have a gut feeling about something. Einstein had a gut feeling about energy and mass. He was right. Then he had a gut feeling about quantum physics. He was wrong.
What about the delusional and inconsequential thought?
Humans exist in a world of certainty: both in reality and mentality. There is absolutely no way an individual can survive in a state of total chaos and anarchy, where every rule is ever changing or every notion is based on a whim. People in a mental state of total chaos and anarchy are degenerate, self destructive, and unsociable. Energy in a state of total chaos and anarchy is without shape, form, or purpose and would inevitably convert into impotent heat (violently or otherwise). The Universe follows a set of Laws, because those Laws are what make the Universe what it is. To change them – naturally or unnaturally – would unravel existence as we know it. Those rules do not change because those rules are the stability and certainty upon which everything exists. Forces do not happen because of spontaneous desire of the mind - forces happen according to a system of physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc.
Ironically faith and beliefs reaffirm science: because miracles or acts of wonder would not be miracles and acts of wonder, if they could happen normally. So-and-so claiming to be born without parents, defies logic and reasoning, so therefore become some metaphysical notion. The difference is that logic and reasoning, adheres that it’s still fanciful and needs to be proven to determine if that really happened or if the individual just made it all up.
We know the laws of the universe will change ¬ñ there really isn’t any question of that. There’s reasonable data to expect the Universe will collapse crunch, freeze, or rip. In all four scenarios, the Universe doesn’t cease to exist: the Universe ceases to be what it currently is.
I suppose it’s easier to say that Universe isn’t static, but the Universe is still certain… even until death.
I hate String Theory… or rather I hate the people who are espousing them. String Theories are being tested, but they haven’t been proven. Not a single one, to my knowledge, has provided any technological application. Of course that doesn’t mean they aren’t possible… but it’s not science to claim they’re real without proof. According to the more radical supporters of String Theory, we can predict the future and manipulate the fabric of time-space itself with String Theory. In short: do what mythological gods do.
Got no problem with that - wouldn’t mind being a God of Twincest - but all those news press conference about String this and String that being how the Universe works is poppy cock until empirical evidence is shown. All they got is math. Good start. But I can make math up too: doesn’t make it real. Those who claim String is the Universe, are doing the same thing Catholics, Hindi, Scientologists, and Rastafarians do - preach a Religion. Except this time it’s a belief in all powerful multidimensional particles, rather than some all powerful benign entity. Or as I call it: God without a Brain.
The trick is to first restrain your partner(s) in such a fashion, that they cannot evoke the safe word until you desire them too. :evil:
The purpose of life is to procreate. Everything a living organism does, ultimately leads to procreation. Those organisms which did not follow this have long been extinct for lack of procreation.
At one time it was argued that the definition should have been, procreation AND survival, but there are millions of organisms - either devoid of intellect or a capacity to defend themselves - which continue live but do not strive to survive. They simply procreate faster than extermination.
Love is an emotional byproduct of creatures to assert stability for procreation, but is not necessary for it. Children can be born from a loveless relationship: such as rape and lust driven one night stands. Love makes the entire ordeal emotionally satisfying and socially reliable… but not exactly needed.
Natural Selection is basically survival of the fittest. Naturally that must include a means to propagate strong offspring that maintain that standing, else something else will come along and take its place.
Technically speaking, despite what women may say, all human males have adequate sized dicks. That’s because the ancient men who had little dicks couldn’t properly inseminate females, and thus their little dick gene went extinct. Of course women will always argue there’s a lot of room for more research in that field.
Lust and love are two different things. Also, love covers an emotion that can transcend a relationship between people: love of country, love of self, love of a god, love of concept… let’s not forget that love is too often self-destructive for it to be wholly subject to the whims of evolution. Not too mention its conjoined twin known as hate.
But back to faith and the universe: problem of induction… pointing to prior events does not prove that a similar or identical event will happen. It could predict such an outcome, but is not a certainty. Using universal laws does not avert this problem.
Also, I am not saying that simply not proving something means that it is true. My point is that since it cannot be disproven, it might be true. I cannot prove we aren’t jellybeans in some god’s fishbowl… but that doesn’t mean we actually are. Unless of course you accept various ontological arguments… or simply believe that in an infinite, eternal existence where everything that has happened, will happen and is happening at all times… then we are what we are now, we are whatever we would be, and we are all that we have ever been. That means, if some alternate reality has us as jellybeans in a fishbowl then we are jellybeans in a fishbowl. Or maybe this is just a delusion of a jellybean in a bowl…
I don’t personally believe that we are jellybeans in a fishbowl right now. Now, if a jellybean can have a consciousness (no matter how limited), then at some point in eternity I am sure that will happen. I’m not sure if that would be interesting or boring… well, until the horrid pain of teeth ripping you apart ends that particular life. Maybe that is why I don’t like jellybeans; I was one in my past iteration.
I know it is a limited perspective because there have been moments where that perception has widened for me. In order for such “growth” to have happened, it must have been smaller than before. So I could easily take those moments and impose them on the human perspective as it is now. That means it would merely be a belief but, and you’ll not like this, it is simply one of those certainties of mine. Actually it is but a part of a certainty that overrides several aspects.
On knowing: you are still conflating “knowing” with believing and also assuming a singular universal truth on top of that. You are still making base assumptions on existence in order to operate within a certain framework.
On religious experience: first, I said poor analogy. Second… that attitude is part of the divide I talk about though. For someone who has had such an experience, we may think it a delusion or a dream or a trick (etc), but they still know that experience as truth. They cannot prove it to us, but they are secure in that certainty.
Last: you assume the universe follows a constant set of laws. You have no proof. But it is odd since you have agreed that the laws will change in the future and have changed in the past. It seems you define the universe as that which exists from the Big Bang until its end (whatever that might be). But, what of that existence that preceeded the Big Bang and that will continue “long” after the “end”?
On miracles: you are accepting the fallacious argument that “miracles are outside of nature, x happened in nature, thus x could not have been a miracle”. It is a sloppy argument that seeks to impose a stability on an occurence that is not predictable by scientific means. Also, it severely limits the broadness of miracle. I would consider that existence is a miracle in and of itself.
That anything exists at all is proof enough that there is more than simple “science”.
We have proof due to the way space-time works. When we look into the cosmos, we are looking back billions of years ago. In some cases we are seeing what the Universe was like merely a few million years from its birth. With any luck, we might be able to witness what the Universe looked like seconds after it’s birth (depends what technology can or cannot achieve). Furthermore due to the nature of how energy and matter decay, we can extrapolate a picture of the time periods that exceeds our observational methods.
It’s not odd at all: the majority of changes are so minute they’re inconsequential ¬ñ as the LHC intends to prove with experimentation. The last big change that occurred was the Big Bang, and in the first microseconds alone, the majority that works today came into play and pretty much stayed way. Only real continuing change was and is spatial expansion, which is still going on, and the significant force that causes changes to begin with (so it’s the life giver and life taker so to speak). The next big change that will occur ¬ñ gradually over the course of billions or even trillions of years ¬ñ is a freeze/rip/crunch/collapse. However it’s because of the constant of the Universe ¬ñ the certainty of it ¬ñ that the Universe would die in one of these fashions. Indeed the death of the Universe will be the final huzzah for science, because it would prove that the inevitability principle of it rang true. Of course I’m sure few scientists during the last few seconds would cheer that on… but they could pat themselves on the back before the kiss of oblivion.
However the changes in the Laws will be predicted through these transitions: especially in the case of a heat death ¬ñ i.e. the freeze scenario. It’s not like one day we all wake up, and suddenly energy stops working. Gradually the rules of energy will weaken, and these changes can be monitored and observed to predict the next stage of change. What a fantasy writer might propose ¬ñ that suddenly magic would exist because the Laws cease ¬ñ is not scientists mean when the Universe will change. What they mean is atoms would stop attracting and electromagnetic energy would rapidly decay. It means LESS activity throughout the cosmos will occur ¬ñ not more. It means Laws will stop, not that new Laws will come into play and that too would be born from the certainty of the constant. Just because the laws of gravity cease (not claiming that they would, just using it as an example), doesn’t mean you’ll fly. In fact, flying should be the least of your thrills, since you’d be tearing apart at an atomic level for other reasons.
Scientists stopped claiming the Universe was never changing since the 1800’s ¬ñ although theologies seem to enjoy forgetting that. Scientists state that the Universe is constant. There’s a huge difference between the terminology expression ¬ñ and the usage of constant is in relation to Relativity among other things… not a philosophical meandering.
The Universe is Big Bang to Big Death. That’s what it’s always been. That’s why we say the Big Bang was the birth of the Universe. It wasn’t around before then. What was around before then, might never be known, since time-space wasn’t in play until the fireworks. That’s what research into the primordial “Super Force” tries to determine ¬ñ although they’ve obviously had zero luck in figuring anything out. Current prevailing theory: infinite mass and energy contained within a single point, without time or space. Although if that’s the case, then NOTHING happened until the Big Bang. That infinite mass and energy remained frozen in that eternal state until a moment of time-space took effect, which resulted in the explosion we all know and love.
Best way to figure it out? Make our own artificial miniature universes, if knowledge and technology ever allows such a thing. Then again we might not wanna try that either, since it could destroy the one we have now.
Not really. It’s more like common sense, since for someone to claim a miracle happened, that miracle would have needed to occur and someone to have observed it… or else no one could claim for it to have happened. For anyone to interpret the event requires argument and assessment: how do you know that deity is the good one and the other is the bad one? There has be objective definition. That’s already more than enough for logical discourse… unless it didn’t happen and/or it’s all make believe.
Or happenstance ¬ñ which is a chain of logical events leading to the moment. Even intelligent design would deny miracle, since it was all planned from the start, and thus intended. It’s like following instructions to put LEGO’s together… hardly miraculous.
It just lets people fill in the blanks with whatever they want to fill them in with, until the real answer is figured out.
This whole thread should be called how long until the debate is dropped or will it very end. :lol:
Love and Lust are the same. But given that you are good at debating I wont bother trying to say why. I’ll say this though you are right (to me) love transcend between to people.
Well the interpretation of love is philosophical, so one could say there’s really no right answer… and if scientists knew the mathematics to love, they’d have the hottest wives.
I say love and lust are the same base emotion, but exhibited for reasons and means of expression. Sometimes the lines are pretty blurry if you remove the factor of reciprocation. Some rapists claim to love their victims, whereas others say their feelings were twisted and demented, thus any horrid thing but love.
I would say if love was a wholly physical entity, we would long have had love potions that actually work. Far too many people sorely desired a certain someone to love them in return for the means to create love to remain a mystery if it were merely physical.
That same thing speaks of the vast difference of lust and love. Lust simply is the desire for the body. I’v known plenty of men and women who engaged in lustful relationships but desired love. Sort of defies evolution too, since lust is a far better survival mechanism than love. Screw as many people as you want and pop out babies left and right… or love one person and maybe punish this world with another mewling frustration or two.
There are plenty of relationships based in love that, through choice or circumstance, have nothing to do with lust.
Also, the fact that love inspires an insanity that would gladly raze the world to save the one you love… that doesn’t seem to healthy for survival.
Anyway… on the line of demarcation you asked about: there isn’t one. Something not proven simply might be true. But then that isn’t saying much since almost every statement of fact is actually a mere statment of probability or possibility. Despite attempts, no one can truly claim that “I drop this pencil and it is certain to fall”. There might be evidence of such a likely-hood, but the problem of induction rears its unforgiving head and trounces on the “certainty”.
And on miracles: a miracle could be an observable and physical action that defies the supposed “rules” of the universe. If gravity were to stop working for a brief period of time for a specific person to cease them from splattering across the pavement… well, it is observable and clearly took place in the natural world. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a miracle. There have been plenty of occurences where a natural event happened that defied prior occurences and succeeding occurences after… science simply assumes that it is either a rare exception to the rule or that it will someday find the answer.
Which ties back into science as a religion itself: science has clearly shown that it makes grand leaps of faith and declarations of “truth” despite there being no current evidence for such beliefs or statements. This is clearly evident right now with the fundamentalist faith in physicalism alone, not to mention supposed settled science such as climate change.
I don’t think anyone thinks love is physical: it’s obviously an emotion. However emotions can be categorized as stimulus responses, which in turn can be traced for evolutionary origins. Like any emotion, love can be artificially chemically induced in people - obviously alcohol is incredibly notorious for inducing a whole range of them, tying it to the brain. CIA and KBG worked extensively on drug interrogation research, although it ultimately proved difficult to get certain results because of people’s differing physiology and mentalities. Naturally because it’s artificial, once the person regains their normal behavior that sensation obviously vanishes, but for a brief time it was love - born through deception and violation, but love.
Then what do you say is the difference between a “love for power” and a “lust for power”?
Hence the reason such activities are considered suicidal. That doesn’t change the significance that love supports the general survival mechanism: i.e. the urge for a parent to sacrifice themselves to keep their offspring alive, as does its desire to maintain communal unity among individuals.
Though a probability and possibility of zero, though a probability and possibility, is still zero.
I can. I will tell you right now that every pencil I drop from my desk will fall from the floor, unless something (like zero-gee) or someone (like a kid catching it) interferes with its path. I will say that with 100% certainty. Anytime. Anywhere.
I would bet my lifesavings on it. The pencil will not hover in midair and stay there. The pencil will not suddenly vanish and teleport to the other ends of the Earth. The pencil will not metamorph into a bird and fly away. The pencil will fall 100% all the time. The Laws dictate that it will.
Every time it does, I can recite the scientific proof of why that is so. I so dearly wish I could find someone who would pay me $10000 a day for each time the pencil falls, and I pay them $50000 a day for each time it does not, with the honesty that zero trickery or cheating would be taken (tying string to the pencil or something of the sort). The only thing they can do, is hope or perform some sort of means that defies the scientific laws involved: gravity, friction, kinetic energy, etc. Someone take me up on that bet. Please oh, please.
And you’d best pay me… cause my yandere twin girlfriends won’t be very happy with you when I’m disappointed.
Though becomes explainable, since something took away the gravity, in which case could prove gravitons are real and can be manipulated through external mediums. I see nothing magical, just more science to prove. Hence the reason many scientists would LOVE to witness, record, and test such an event… though it’s doubtful that will occur until someone discovers all the information concerning gravity.
You use the term “exception” rather loosely there. There are always exceptions, but that does not mean the exception is a defiance of the rules involved. It merely means the rules were obeyed in a fashion not normal to the situation. An iron pole not rusting is not a miracle - it means the composition of the iron is of a nature that resists corrosion. The feat can be repeated over and over again, so long as those properties are maintained. How the iron pole came to exist can easily be explained through metallurgical and historical accounts. Rarity does not imply miraculous, it’s just a faucet of statistics.
Anything that can happen is likely to happen, given time and circumstance allows such an event to happen: lightning striking twice or pennies not rusting. Anything that cannot happen simply will not happen: lightning transmogrifying into delicious chocolate cookies or pennies exerting their own gravitational field to attract planetary bodies.
That makes absolutely no sense, and you know it. One of the key cornerstones of science is demonstration of empirical proof. How can it be science without proof? It can’t be. That’s not science.
One can propose a theory, but it will forever remain a theory until proven. Theories does not mean its science, no matter how scientific it may sound. A theory of dragon eggs has as much validity as a theory of alien intelligence, until that guesswork is proven. Nor does using the Scientific Method mean it’s scientific ¬ñ it merely means you are using the Scientific Method.
Don’t pervert what science is.
The history of climate change has been corrupted with greed and lies, so you couldn’t even remotely call it a science until recently. There is no question that climate change is occurring, and you’re openly deluding yourself in a fantasy if you deny it ¬ñ i.e. a belief or faith that climate change isn’t happening (might I mention the Earth is flat too). The question of what’s causing the climate change (natural cycle, pollution, or both of them) is mired in political muck and economic lust ¬ñ but the same can be said of anything humans are involved with ¬ñ including belief. However that does not change the fact that empirical data has been collected on climate change for decades, and that such data was entirely true. Don’t blame science because people in power with an agenda had that data falsified, destroyed, or hidden. That wasn’t science, that was people in power with an agenda. It’s people refusing to accept the science on climate change, or people manipulating data to suite their needs that are causing problems.
I believe the climate is always changing… so that isn’t an issue. The earth warms and cools in cycles. Man-caused climate change is what I was referring to. It is far from proven, especially since the data collected to support such a claim is far too limited. The climate on this planet is far more complext and vast to capture it adequately with the data sets they are using. This is readily apparent when they look at various climate data from warmer periods in the past. I do not outright deny or support man-made global warming (or cooling) at this point in time. I personally lean towards the natural cycle of climate change, but am willing to accept that we just don’t have enough experience on the subject to make any solid determinations.
And to science: I view science as the tools and institution that exist. You view science as the foundation of the universe. Since I believe science helps us to understand the rules and foundation of the universe while you believe that science is that foundation itself… we are just going to have to agree to disagree here. Symantically we are not talking about the same entity and we are merely running in circles.
