Morbert wrote: » In some ways, chaotic inflation is the inverse of a bubbling soup. When you boil soup, it is produces local regions of inflating bubbles. In chaotic inflation, the soup is inflating and it produces local regions that stop expanding.
smacl wrote: » Fantastic analogy. Worthy of Doctor Who
newmug wrote: » We're going waaaaaaaaaaayyyy off thread here! To sum up the latest argument, some lucky people have faith, some other people don't, and they'll be kicking themselves when they die or when science actually discovers proof of the supernatural dimension, whichever comes first.* On-topic, the bottom line is that Russia is still acting the maggot. Maybe its a case of Fatima is right, maybe its a case of "a broken clock is right twice a day". We'll all find out soon enough anyway. *(Given the discoveries in the last 50 years of how things at a quantum level actually DONT follow Newtonian laws of physics, I never cease to be amazed at the closed-mindedness of the very people who think they're more intelligent than the average Joe, especially if Joe is a religious type. Its irony and hypocrisy rolled into one. Science will eventually discover proof of the supernatural - its inevitable)
lazybones32 wrote: » Disagree with that one. Don't many of them approach a topic/subject with an attitude of "there must be a (insert scientific discipline here) reason
newmug wrote: » Some do, but they shouldn't. REAL scientists don't.
lazybones32 wrote: » Scientific Method by its very nature cannot accept that there is anything supernatural because everything must have a physical cause.
newmug wrote: » Nope. You can have a chemical cause, a biological cause, a psychological cause, an electromagnetic cause etc. Physics is just one branch of science, probably the most understood one at that. The supernatural definitely doesn't reside there. But quantum mechanics, now that's a frontier with some hidden surprises! Its one for another thread. But, being an engineer myself, I can tell you that science doesn't exclude any possibility. Indeed, some of the things they have discovered recently are bizarre, they fly in the face of traditional thinking. Just google superstring theory. Stuff being in 2 places at once and all that. Sound familiar?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory#Extra_dimensions The more science discovers, the less likely it is that we are just a fluke of nature. The amount of things that would have had to go perfectly right just to get us to where we are is beyond statistically possible. Every single instant in time / action in space since the big bang would have had to work out with such precision that the odds would be infinite. And if it is all just a fluke, why didn't it repeat itself? The more science unfolds our make-up, the more obvious it is that there is a design in there. It may take 10 years, it may take 10,000 years, but someday the link between what we now call the "supernatural" (I think spiritual is a more accurate word for it) and the "natural" will become known. I can fully understand the athiests who don't believe, purely because it actually IS hard to believe something that you don't have proof of. Sure the first atheist ever was one of the apostles, St.Thomas! No bother there lads. But its the arrogant ones, the militant-student types who think they've superior intelligence, and yet they cant see the hypocrisy of their own narrow-mindedness! Would yiz get off the pitch lads, just get off the feckin pitch!
newmug wrote: » The more science discovers, the less likely it is that we are just a fluke of nature. The amount of things that would have had to go perfectly right just to get us to where we are is beyond statistically possible. Every single instant in time / action in space since the big bang would have had to work out with such precision that the odds would be infinite. And if it is all just a fluke, why didn't it repeat itself? The more science unfolds our make-up, the more obvious it is that there is a design in there. It may take 10 years, it may take 10,000 years, but someday the link between what we now call the "supernatural" (I think spiritual is a more accurate word for it) and the "natural" will become known. :
The more science discovers, the less likely it is that we are just a fluke of nature. The amount of things that would have had to go perfectly right just to get us to where we are is beyond statistically possible
Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: » We cannot calculate the odds of an outcome (as opposed to a particular outcome) because we don't know the physics. But there is no reason to suppose that an outcome is nearly as unlikely as a particular outcome. There is also no reason to suppose that anything is picking one particular outcome over another particular outcome.
Lady Chuckles wrote: » I think you're being unfair. Are you saying that people who believe in intelligent design are non-thinkers? I love philosophy, religion and science. I enjoy combining all of them as best I can - and I can :P ... Some people who believe in ID has put a great deal of thoughts into their belief, what they find plausible and why, and whereas you don't have to agree, I don't think saying they're non-thinkers is fair - nor does it contribute to good, friendly discussion (although I get that people online can sometimes be quite frustrating)
Lady Chuckles wrote: » But it does exist... and likewise if you took Darwin away I think that if we had neither, people would still come to the same conclusion. Some thinking there's a divine creator and some thinking that it's all evolution.
Lady Chuckles wrote: » Oh please... You have no interest in being anybody's student - and I never said anything about my own beliefs so it's pretty cheeky asking me to give you evidence for creation (I'm not even sure what you want me to prove) I told you if we had neither, we'd probably come up with both anyway.
Lady Chuckles wrote: » You clearly don't get what I am trying to say.
Lady Chuckles wrote: » I love philosophy, religion and science. I enjoy combining all of them as best I can - and I can :P ... Some people who believe in ID has put a great deal of thoughts into their belief, what they find plausible and why, and whereas you don't have to agree, I don't think saying they're non-thinkers is fair - nor does it contribute to good, friendly discussion (although I get that people online can sometimes be quite frustrating)
Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: » A lot of ideas and concepts in intelligent design/creationism do not seem to be updated, revised or dropped when they are shown to be not rationally sound. That to me would suggest that those who propose them are not reaching their conclusions based on rational arguing, but rather on emotional lines of belief. Of course everyone does that to some degree in different areas. I've had conversations with the most rational people I know where they are holding to some clearly unsound idea and cannot see the issue. But again it is always clear that this is for emotional reasons (often around relationships, illness etc). I would agree with you that broad classifications of people based on a particular sub-set of beliefs they hold is not conducive to friendly conversation, but equally simply because a proponent of ID can be rational and can think about the subject doesn't mean that the conclusions they reach are rationally sound with a lot of thought behind them.
Lady Chuckles wrote: » You're a really good writer Holding to "unsound" ideas for emotional reasons goes for everyone. Not just people who are normally "rational". People you'd say are "irrational", are probably like that for emotional reasons as well. (I'm not sure I like the words unsound, rational and irrational because they are not ojective words .... hence the "..." ) You say creationism doesn't progress, which is true - or at least I haven't heard any recent research on it. On the polar opposite, science changes every day. The truths we know today, may not be truths in a few years (talking generally now, not science vs religion) - and that's what makes it so intriguing! It also leaves room to philosophically ponder on your own Finally: Creationism isn't just in the bible, by the way (feeling compelled to respond to previous poster, even though I wasn't going to) If you look up other ancient civilisations (BC), the likes of Mayan, Vikings, Celts, Egyptians etc. you'll find that they had creationism as well.
Lady Chuckles wrote: » Finally: Creationism isn't just in the bible, by the way (feeling compelled to respond to previous poster, even though I wasn't going to) If you look up other ancient civilisations (BC), the likes of Mayan, Vikings, Celts, Egyptians etc. you'll find that they had creationism as well.
Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: » Sniped But as we have learned from science, particularly with physics in the last 100 years, there is often no correlation between what is easy for us to understand and what is true.
tommy2bad wrote: » And the opposite is equally true, that which is easy dismissed is not necessary false.
Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: » Not equally, as there are far more ideas that are false than there are ideas that are true. There is only one reality, but an infinite number of imagined variations of that reality which are not real (or false). To put it another way, when making a statement about reality it is far far easier to get it wrong than it is to get it right. That means you need a very very good reason to think a statement is probably true, and very little reason to think a statement is probably false, since all things being equal it is far more likely to be false than true.
tommy2bad wrote: » I'm not so sure it's more likely to be wrong as right, it's more likely to be inaccurate than completely wrong. We work by refining truth, building one on top of another.
Lady Chuckles wrote: » ... and I'm not too gone on the whole "there's only one reality" Like, how could we possibly know there's only one? What makes you say that? Couldn't there be many reasons, solutions and truths? I believe it's more complex than that.
tommy2bad wrote: » Penny you are presupposing that everyone has the same data. They don't. 500 years ago we had a lot less information than we do now, 1000 years ago even less and if you go back far enough all they had were observations of the naked eye, no set of references to place those observations in. In fairness the data they had fitted their theory. As the data grew the theory changed and adapted to fit the data. Today we have another more complete set of data but still not complete, a more refined theory but not a final set of data. "We see farther because we stand on the shoulders of giants"
Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: » Hi Tommy, That isn't really anything to do with my point. I'm not criticising anyone for not knowing back then what was happening. I'm saying that it is far far far easier to get something wrong that right. We must therefore be very sure of something for it to have much value.
tommy2bad wrote: » Value, I suppose it depends on what value your looking for.
