I am a fan of science, but the Big Bang doesn't seem realitstic to me.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Ruiner1978

No, myths were created based on the understanding of the day and the "sciences" available back then, astrology and such.

Why is sciences in quotes?

:-)

You seem to have a problem with your own argument

Why shouldn't it be in quotes?

I don't have a problem with the argument.
Maybe you should state YOUR problem with it...

a reply to: Ruiner1978

No, myths were created based on the understanding of the day and the "sciences" available back then, astrology and such.
Claiming it's just "creative imagination" is lazy and misguided.

Myths are never created by intellectuals. Myths accrete, with generation after generation adding its creative input. By the time intellectuals get round to interpreting and embroidering them, they have already begun to decay and be supplanted by more current narratives.

Myths represent the third great stream of human creativity along with religion and art. To deny that they are made up is to deny an essential aspect of humanity.

Your closing paragraph is quite amusing.
You sound almost like a cultist, one of the chosen ones with your "education" and "understanding".
You're sorry in what sense exactly? Sorry in the same kind of sense as Christians are sorry for those who don't find salvation in Christ?

Yes, I'm sure it sounds pretty horrid from where you're standing. Sadly, you find yourself in the position of someone who can't play an instrument or read music trying to understand the difference between a sixth chord and a minor seventh. Is music a cult?

To answer your question, yes, kind of analogous to what Christians must feel. But you know, I recognize my own limits. I never express opinions on matters I don't understand.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Science is science. Myth is myth

I don't have a problem with your "problem" I only see it for what it is :-)

Maybe, if you're wanting to understand the real truth of this situation, you should consult an astrologer

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Good point. The quotes acknowledge that astrology in no way approximates to science -- ie that it's bunkum. Made up, y'know.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ruiner1978

No, myths were created based on the understanding of the day and the "sciences" available back then, astrology and such.
Claiming it's just "creative imagination" is lazy and misguided.

Myths are never created by intellectuals. Myths accrete, with generation after generation adding its creative input. By the time intellectuals get round to interpreting and embroidering them, they have already begun to decay and be supplanted by more current narratives.

Myths represent the third great stream of human creativity along with religion and art. To deny that they are made up is to deny an essential aspect of humanity.

Very good!
And like I said earlier, I expect years from now people will be saying the exact same thing about the big bang myth.
"People used to believe it all just banged into existence, like a magic fart."
They'll think our time was void of intellectuals as you do of then.

Yes, I'm sure it sounds pretty horrid from where you're standing. Sadly, you find yourself in the position of someone who can't play an instrument or read music trying to understand the difference between a sixth chord and a minor seventh. Is music a cult?

To answer your question, yes, kind of analogous to what Christians must feel. But you know, I recognize my own limits. I never express opinions on matters I don't understand.

You misread my words.
I said amusing, not horrid.

Yes yes, you understand, I don't.
You keep saying that. It's almost like you're trying to convince yourself of it rather than me...

a reply to: Astyanax

In a time of fake news, where nothing means anything (according to some) and everyone can own a version of the truth - I think it's hilarious how people who don't even believe their own bullsnip will still continue to argue

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Good point. The quotes acknowledge that astrology in no way approximates to science -- ie that it's bunkum. Made up, y'know.

Yes it's a good point, and exactly what I'm getting at.
That kind of thing WAS the "science" to the people of that time.

Are you understanding yet?

a reply to: Ruiner1978

All this talk of FACTS and IT'S BEEN PROVEN.
How do you know these facts as facts?
Because you've read them in a text book and taken them as gospel.

Look what happens when the Scientific Creation Myth comes under question.
People start thumping their text books, reciting their own dogma more zealously than the religious.

What you're attached to (seems to me) is the idea that things change. Ideas change. Our understanding of the universe and our place in it - changes

Facts - are always going to be facts

Theories change. Based on facts. That doesn't make them myths

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Ruiner1978

All this talk of FACTS and IT'S BEEN PROVEN.
How do you know these facts as facts?
Because you've read them in a text book and taken them as gospel.

Look what happens when the Scientific Creation Myth comes under question.
People start thumping their text books, reciting their own dogma more zealously than the religious.

What you're attached to (seems to me) is the idea that things change. Ideas change. Our understanding of the universe and our place in it - changes

Facts - are always going to be facts

Theories change. Based on facts. That doesn't make them myths

But what we call myths were once seen as fact, no?
As someone said earlier, it was once a "fact" that the earth was flat, no?
Facts are only facts until we realise that they aren't.

Physics fall apart at a certain point. So we, dare I say, "make up" something else to sit along side it so it "makes sense".

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Physics fall apart at a certain point. So we, dare I say, "make up" something else to sit along side it so it "makes sense".

How does this work out - in your head? What exactly is the myth portion of physics that you're alluding to? How is it you're in a position to know when something is made up, and when it's provable?

Where are your facts?

Assumptions, suppositions, guesses and denial aren't facts, or science. If (in fact) you know something that proves (some part?) of known physics is just made up stories - show us how you know this. Prove your point

I have to assume you want to be able to say science is just an opinion?

March for Science
Hopefully coming to a town near you Ruiner1978. You should think about it . I'm going :-)

The March For Myth will happen sometime next year if we can't get things back on track this year

Pray for us

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Xenogears


And I still don't know what it's supposedly a simulation of, if it's not a simulation of something else, the word "simulation" does not apply.

Call it what you will. In reality within a digital computer what is called a simulation is merely the transition from certain states, or binary sequences, to other binary sequences. Whether that corresponds to what you call reality or a particular system or not matters not.

There are countless alternate physics rules, and possibilities. Just like an infinite of monkeys can write hamlet randomly typing. Merely enumerating and segmenting all numerical sequences, starting from 0, and going up by adding one continuously, will give you all possible sequences. Some of these sequences if fed through a brain computer interface will generate your entire life history of sensations indistinguishable from the real, does that mean we should call it a simulation of reality? what if all that exists are these sequences without any underlying reality? What if what we call reality is merely defining the relations or rules within the sequences and nothing more?. If the brain itself is only doing computation without special fundamental properties underlying consciousness, there is no need for an external brain, the sequences themselves will contain a conscious observer experiencing all your life history.

Even simple addition with branching is enough for universal computation, computing anything that can be computed or so I've heard.

Some believe the universe is an atemporal blocktime crystal like existence, without time, with each moment existing eternally. It may be that an eternal sequence merely by the relations contained within it, embodies the entirety of reality.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Physics fall apart at a certain point. So we, dare I say, "make up" something else to sit along side it so it "makes sense".

How does this work out - in your head? What exactly is the myth portion of physics that you're alluding to? How is it you're in a position to know when something is made up, and when it's provable?

Where are your facts?

Assumptions, suppositions, guesses and denial aren't facts, or science. If (in fact) you know something that proves (some part?) of known physics is just made up stories - show us how you know this. Prove your point

I have to assume you want to be able to say science is just an opinion?

March for Science
Hopefully coming to a town near you Ruiner1978. You should think about it . I'm going :-)

The March For Myth will happen sometime next year if we can't get things back on track this year

Pray for us

Physics fall apart at a certain point.

This is a fact.

You know that, right?

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Physics fall apart at a certain point

This is a fact.

You know that, right?

How is it a fact? Explain to me how and where it falls apart

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Well, what a disappointment that was.

I asked you to support your claim that myths aren't made up. Instead, you go back on your claim and try another: 'okay, myths may be made up after all, but then so is science.'

That's a primary-schooler's response, so you will understand why I see no reason to pursue my enquiry any further.

But I am curious about another remarkable statement you made:

Physics fall apart at a certain point. So we, dare I say, "make up" something else to sit along side it so it "makes sense".

At what point does physics (which is singular, by the way, not plural) 'fall apart'?

Who makes up the 'something else'? Physicists?

Could you please provide an example?

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

Physics fall apart at a certain point. So we, dare I say, "make up" something else...

You really don't understand much about what science is or how it's done, do you? You're trying to relate to it through some memory of religion.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Physics fall apart at a certain point

This is a fact.

You know that, right?

How is it a fact? Explain to me how and where it falls apart

When we call it quantum physics instead

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Well, what a disappointment that was.

I asked you to support your claim that myths aren't made up. Instead, you go back on your claim and try another: 'okay, myths may be made up after all, but then so is science.'

No, that's your misinterpretation of what I said.
You choose to ignore certain points, that's what happens.
If you pick and choose when the reason for quotation marks apply you will confuse yourself.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

Physics fall apart at a certain point. So we, dare I say, "make up" something else...

You really don't understand much about what science is or how it's done, do you? You're trying to relate to it through some memory of religion.

I understand enough I think. I just don't have as much faith in it as you do.

I have a question though.
If someone make a discovery tomorrow that completely falsified most of what we think we know. Would you abandon your old ideas or cling on to them?

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

I have a question though.
If someone make a discovery tomorrow that completely falsified most of what we think we know. Would you abandon your old ideas or cling on to them?

If the falsification was replicable, falsifiable, and unimpeachable...


in a #ing second!

That's what science is.

I get the impression that "science is made up stories" / "science is being told what to believe" people such as yourself, despite using a computer to post that sort of absurd comment, believe that physics and engineering school is some sort of church sermon where some old guy tells you what to think and the class echoes it back like an old-timey responsive reading.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Religion falls into the category of "revealed truth". In a religion, there is NEVER any objective evidence, no testing, no verification, no real understanding of the 'why' or 'how'. A god of some sort lays down a set of edicts, reveals some sort of 'truth', and then the acolytes of the religion elaborate on it, and that's how you get a Bible, a Quran, some sort of sacred scrolls, and that's it. No further questioning. If it turns out that one day, some brave soul challenges the 'truths' that have been revealed by the 'god', then the entire religion collapses.

Science doesn't work that way.

Science falls into the category of 'discovered truth'. And it's a process, not a set of data tables or facts, although science produces these things. Science is a way of trying to pare away the errors imposed by the crappy senses and perceptions that nature has gifted us with. And that's the core of it. It's not some pseudo-priest telling you what to believe. You learn HOW to think about things. How to question things. How to take your questions, compare them to what has already been observed, and to validate or invalidate your suppositions in a way that other people can then ALSO test to make sure you're not pulling your own chain, so to speak.

So when you get people who basically don't have a clue at all saying something like 'you only believe in Newton's laws of motion because some old guy told you to', what I immediately hear is "bla bla I have no idea at all bla bla", because that's not how it works at all. Not only have I done endless hours of Newtonian physics in class, I've done them in lab and come to the same conclusions. I've been told the history of how people came to believe it, done the same things, found the same problems, come to the same conclusions. MOST of any science class, especially the beginning parts, are arranged so that you re-iterate the processes that your predecessors went through. You get to skip the false starts, although I'm pretty sure the lab instructors would be more than happy to arrange for you to go waste some time. I've more than once thrown the gauntlet at the instructor or lab assistant and gone down some rabbit trails.

And then when you get up to your masters and doctorate, you get to go do some actual research. The beginning of a lot of it. The same sort of thing goes on as an engineer, although I tend to do less ground-breaking research as an engineer than I would as a physicist. Although not none. But, as an engineer, I don't get to just somehow pull designs out of my butt and say 'some old guy in a class told me that this would work, so it will', it's actually got to work, and if all these musty old science facts and ideas are utter bull#, then, you know, the thing won't do what you expect, if anything.

There actually isn't a lot of 'some old science priest said it, and it's all made up" that would actually work, you know, when you're taking a handful of sand and turning it into the computer you're using.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

I have a question though.
If someone make a discovery tomorrow that completely falsified most of what we think we know. Would you abandon your old ideas or cling on to them?

If the falsification was replicable, falsifiable, and unimpeachable...


in a #ing second!

That's what science is.

I get the impression that "science is made up stories" / "science is being told what to believe" people such as yourself, despite using a computer to post that sort of absurd comment, believe that physics and engineering school is some sort of church sermon where some old guy tells you what to think and the class echoes it back like an old-timey responsive reading.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Religion falls into the category of "revealed truth". In a religion, there is NEVER any objective evidence, no testing, no verification, no real understanding of the 'why' or 'how'. A god of some sort lays down a set of edicts, reveals some sort of 'truth', and then the acolytes of the religion elaborate on it, and that's how you get a Bible, a Quran, some sort of sacred scrolls, and that's it. No further questioning. If it turns out that one day, some brave soul challenges the 'truths' that have been revealed by the 'god', then the entire religion collapses.

Science doesn't work that way.

Science falls into the category of 'discovered truth'. And it's a process, not a set of data tables or facts, although science produces these things. Science is a way of trying to pare away the errors imposed by the crappy senses and perceptions that nature has gifted us with. And that's the core of it. It's not some pseudo-priest telling you what to believe. You learn HOW to think about things. How to question things. How to take your questions, compare them to what has already been observed, and to validate or invalidate your suppositions in a way that other people can then ALSO test to make sure you're not pulling your own chain, so to speak.

So when you get people who basically don't have a clue at all saying something like 'you only believe in Newton's laws of motion because some old guy told you to', what I immediately hear is "bla bla I have no idea at all bla bla", because that's not how it works at all. Not only have I done endless hours of Newtonian physics in class, I've done them in lab and come to the same conclusions. I've been told the history of how people came to believe it, done the same things, found the same problems, come to the same conclusions. MOST of any science class, especially the beginning parts, are arranged so that you re-iterate the processes that your predecessors went through. You get to skip the false starts, although I'm pretty sure the lab instructors would be more than happy to arrange for you to go waste some time. I've more than once thrown the gauntlet at the instructor or lab assistant and gone down some rabbit trails.

And then when you get up to your masters and doctorate, you get to go do some actual research. The beginning of a lot of it. The same sort of thing goes on as an engineer, although I tend to do less ground-breaking research as an engineer than I would as a physicist. Although not none. But, as an engineer, I don't get to just somehow pull designs out of my butt and say 'some old guy in a class told me that this would work, so it will', it's actually got to work, and if all these musty old science facts and ideas are utter bull#, then, you know, the thing won't do what you expect, if anything.

There actually isn't a lot of 'some old science priest said it, and it's all made up" that would actually work, you know, when you're taking a handful of sand and turning it into the computer you're using.

What if that discovery was undeniable proof of the existence of God?