Why god?
Mahipal Singh Virdy
>In article <1995Jan5.2...@news2.den.mmc.com>,
>vi...@pogo.den.mmc.com (Mahipal Singh Virdy) wrote:
>> I wouldn't presume that this issue is about the Bible... but doesn't it
>> say on the cover of it "The Greatest STORY Ever Told"? Key word being
>> STORY!!!
>
>If I remember correctly, newspaper reporters term their articles as
>stories too. For example a reporter would tell her editor/boss that
>she has got the story of Brookhouse getting the 1994 Nobel Physics
>Prize. Also on TV news-reporting. For example report A would say
>to TV watchers, "headline: Brookhouse won the 1994 Nobel Physics
>Prize. Reporter B has the story." Then the camera would pan to
>reporter B, who would start reading out the story...
>
>
>Albert Y.C. Lai tre...@io.org
That's a valid point. But physics is not a story. One has to be
cognizant of the difference between Reality and the stories within
Reality about Reality.
Example: Say for the sake of brainstorming, we as humans lost all
records of the past. Lost all the books and symbols that the past has
impressed upon us. Don't ask how, just assume so.
Now, what would happen? It is highly unlikely that the stories of the
Religions of the world would be recreated the same as they exist today.
The chances are nearly zero. On the otherhand, the laws of physics would
be exactly the same when rediscovered. Only the names and faces of the
discoverers would change.
In this objective sense, physics is not a story. While everything else
is. The laws of physics are independent of the cultural and traditional
biases, including the religious ones, of any society contemplating this
entity called Physics.
Mahipal,
d(me)=(hk)^2 where hk are Quantum Mechanical
Ande Rychter
writes:
> That's a valid point. But physics is not a story. One has to be
> cognizant of the difference between Reality and the stories within
> Reality about Reality.
> Example: Say for the sake of brainstorming, we as humans lost all
> records of the past. Lost all the books and symbols that the past has
> impressed upon us. Don't ask how, just assume so.
> Now, what would happen? It is highly unlikely that the stories of the
> Religions of the world would be recreated the same as they exist today.
> The chances are nearly zero. On the otherhand, the laws of physics would
> be exactly the same when rediscovered. Only the names and faces of the
> discoverers would change.
> In this objective sense, physics is not a story. While everything else
> is. The laws of physics are independent of the cultural and traditional
> biases, including the religious ones, of any society contemplating this
> entity called Physics.
How brilliant! This could be called the Law of Conservation of Reason:
"Unlike folklore, the laws of physics remain constant under cultural stress."
-- Ande Rychter, an...@networx.com
Friesel
wrote:
Except, of course, there's no way to prove such an assumption, nor is it
necessarily reasonable. I think that it's more realistic (I use the term
tentatively) to assume that the phenomena which we observe and describe
would remain the same, but not necesarily the laws we use to describe them.
I think it more likely that any laws developed after the memory reset
would be equivalent to those we use now, but not the same. That Newton and
Kepler chose three laws (three = trinity) probably has a cultural basis.
Similarly, QM is inextricably bound up with the modernist movement (in my
opinion), particularly evident in Braque and Picasso's cubism. How would
such a (postulated) difference in formulation be different in any
meaningful way from new manifestations of religion, when the latter must
satisfy the same human fears and desires as current religions and would
certainly find the same methods effective in controlling people and
defending them against reason and curiousity?
Mark Friesel
(509) 375-2235
e-mail: ma_fr...@pnl.gov
Mahipal Singh Virdy
Friesel <ma_fr...@pnl.gov> wrote:
>In article <3f6u9i$p...@openwx.networx.com>, an...@networx.com (Ande Rychter)
>wrote:
Thanks for the compliment. I did enjoy seeing "eloquent" and then
"brilliant" next to my name. ;-)
>>
>> In <1995Jan12.1...@news2.den.mmc.com> Mahipal Singh Virdy eloquently
>> writes:
>>
>> > That's a valid point. But physics is not a story. One has to be
>> > cognizant of the difference between Reality and the stories within
>> > Reality about Reality.
>>
>> > Example: Say for the sake of brainstorming, we as humans lost all
>> > records of the past. Lost all the books and symbols that the past has
>> > impressed upon us. Don't ask how, just assume so.
>> > Now, what would happen? It is highly unlikely that the stories of the
>> > Religions of the world would be recreated the same as they exist today.
>> > The chances are nearly zero. On the otherhand, the laws of physics would
>> > be exactly the same when rediscovered. Only the names and faces of the
>> > discoverers would change.
>>
>> > In this objective sense, physics is not a story. While everything else
>> > is. The laws of physics are independent of the cultural and traditional
>> > biases, including the religious ones, of any society contemplating this
>> > entity called Physics.
>>
>> How brilliant! This could be called the Law of Conservation of Reason:
>>
>> "Unlike folklore,
>> the laws of physics remain constant under cultural stress."
>>
>
>Except, of course, there's no way to prove such an assumption, nor is it
>necessarily reasonable. I think that it's more realistic (I use the term
>tentatively) to assume that the phenomena which we observe and describe
>would remain the same, but not necesarily the laws we use to describe them.
The assumption is provable and is reasonable.
I was just trying to make a distinction between Physics and Fiction.
It was typing in real time, so to speak. So what I wrote was not well
formulated, in the formal sense. I wasn't even fishing for compliments.
The phenomena is the physics. The laws are just representations by
symbols, a language thing. Surely QM doesn't require Schrodinger's
equations to generate spectral graphs. The laws are just our way of
describing the Physics. (Replace QM with the word Nature)
Of course this argument could go in circles. Nature always obeyed QM, it
just took Schrodinger a long time to figure Her out. But this is a
trivial point.
> I think it more likely that any laws developed after the memory reset
>would be equivalent to those we use now, but not the same. That Newton and
>Kepler chose three laws (three = trinity) probably has a cultural basis.
That's the point. The laws of Nature are expected to be equivalent after
the memory reset. Only the representations ought to change. This is one
of the reasons SETI exists.
Indeed we as individuals are influenced by our childhood experiences and
our adult interactions. But to think that the three laws of Kepler, the
three laws of Newton, the three laws for describing a probability space,
and the fact that three is the third number in all counting systems,...
is somehow related to the Trinity in Christianity or Hinduism or
whatever have you... is a BIT, with all respect and no personal attack
to you Mark, STUPID. Numerology is not numerical analysis.
Three is good number. The first number after two, I think. Syllogims are
formed as threes. Musical chords are in threes. If you've never had a
threesome, then you still don't know what SEX is... ;-)
Perhaps Newton chose the word "mass" because the Apple fell on his head
during Sunday Mass. I'll not deny Religion can be influential and
persuasive. As long as its not FORCED!
>Similarly, QM is inextricably bound up with the modernist movement (in my
>opinion), particularly evident in Braque and Picasso's cubism. How would
>such a (postulated) difference in formulation be different in any
>meaningful way from new manifestations of religion, when the latter must
>satisfy the same human fears and desires as current religions and would
>certainly find the same methods effective in controlling people and
>defending them against reason and curiousity?
>
Perhaps God is independent of Humanity as well?
My original intent was not to say Religion isn't important. I'm just
testing the bounds of human knowledge. If my view is shaped by writers
from the past, then I want to know what they were capable of knowing.
Seems to me that certain religions exist not to calm man's fears, but
rather to feed upon them. Consider the Puritanistic attitudes or the
Abortion vs Anti-Abortion debates and violences.
New Religions? Everything changes. Where there is room for improvement,
society and groups of people will. Just look at how long it took the
Catholic Church to "forgive" Galileo! Certainly that means they saw some
truth in his findings of the Cosmos. If a Religion controls people from
defending them against REASON and CURIOSITY, then don't bring it to me.
There are many Religions to chose from. Using the laws of equal
weighting in the absence of any preconceived biases, I think one needs a
marketing brochure from each and every one of them. And I do wish they
would stop asking for money. Just as there is separation of Religion and
State in the US Constitution (if not in practice), they should find a
way for separating it from Money as well. Can you imagine the audacity
of a "god" to ask for money for the privilage of offering him a prayer?
It's beyond logic. It's beyond reason. It's also the way of the World.
All religions seem to work on the monetary donation principle.
Physics is new! Sort of. It's the idea of discovering Nature for Nature
Herself. It is not run by the status quo or some conspirators. It is the
search for the workings of Nature. Any real scientist worth half a grain
his weight in gold would not deceive himself otherwise. Or so I
subjectively expect. Reading other postings on the net is very mind
expanding. The idea that Nature is fundamentally accessible to a hand
full of Princeton or Cambridge Mathematicians/Physicists is the biggest
LIE yet. It's like: Hey you pion-brained-no-measurable-IQ-individual,
only <WE> understand Nature and we'll tell you that you can't understand
Her even if we tried to explain Her to you. Reminds me of the debate
over the Dead Sea Scrolls and the unwillingness of some to share the
writings with other outside scholars. In science, I **hope** there
are no such problems.
Mahipal,
Use the |meforce> Luke...PS..
I study people. I study science. I find it relativiely easy to judge for
myself whom to believe in. So those of you will again write me for
having no "FAITH" or considering science as the "Center of Nature",
write only if you have something wise to offer. No one person is capable
of judging the contents of another's mind. My faith is my problem and
you need not remind me of my inadequacies. You're not my WIFE! ;-)
That's a JOKE, in case you need to be prompted on when to LAUGH.
Friesel
> Friesel <ma_fr...@pnl.gov> wrote:
> >In article <3f6u9i$p...@openwx.networx.com>, an...@networx.com (Ande Rychter)
> >wrote:
>
> Thanks for the compliment. I did enjoy seeing "eloquent" and then
> "brilliant" next to my name. ;-)
>
> >>
> >> In <1995Jan12.1...@news2.den.mmc.com> Mahipal Singh Virdy eloquently
> >> writes:
> >>
>
> >> > Example: Say for the sake of brainstorming, we as humans lost all
> >> > records of the past. Lost all the books and symbols that the past has
> >> > impressed upon us. Don't ask how, just assume so.
> >> > Now, what would happen? It is highly unlikely that the stories of the
> >> > Religions of the world would be recreated the same as they exist today.
> >> > The chances are nearly zero. On the otherhand, the laws of physics would
> >> > be exactly the same when rediscovered. Only the names and faces of the
> >> > discoverers would change.
> >>
> >> > In this objective sense, physics is not a story. While everything else
> >> > is. The laws of physics are independent of the cultural and traditional
> >> > biases, including the religious ones, of any society contemplating this
> >> > entity called Physics.
> >>
> >> How brilliant! This could be called the Law of Conservation of Reason:
> >>
> >> "Unlike folklore,
> >> the laws of physics remain constant under cultural stress."
> >>
> >
> >Except, of course, there's no way to prove such an assumption, nor is it
> >necessarily reasonable. I think that it's more realistic (I use the term
> >tentatively) to assume that the phenomena which we observe and describe
> >would remain the same, but not necesarily the laws we use to describe them.
>
> The assumption is provable and is reasonable.
>
> I was just trying to make a distinction between Physics and Fiction.
I was just saying that the distinction isn't that clear-cut. It's attitude
that distinguishes scientists from the religious community.
> It was typing in real time, so to speak. So what I wrote was not well
> formulated, in the formal sense. I wasn't even fishing for compliments.
>
> The phenomena is the physics. The laws are just representations by
> symbols, a language thing. Surely QM doesn't require Schrodinger's
> equations to generate spectral graphs. The laws are just our way of
> describing the Physics. (Replace QM with the word Nature)
>
> Of course this argument could go in circles. Nature always obeyed QM, it
> just took Schrodinger a long time to figure Her out. But this is a
> trivial point.
>
> > I think it more likely that any laws developed after the memory reset
> >would be equivalent to those we use now, but not the same. That Newton and
> >Kepler chose three laws (three = trinity) probably has a cultural basis.
>
> That's the point. The laws of Nature are expected to be equivalent after
> the memory reset. Only the representations ought to change. This is one
> of the reasons SETI exists.
>
> Indeed we as individuals are influenced by our childhood experiences and
> our adult interactions. But to think that the three laws of Kepler, the
> three laws of Newton, the three laws for describing a probability space,
> and the fact that three is the third number in all counting systems,...
> is somehow related to the Trinity in Christianity or Hinduism or
> whatever have you... is a BIT, with all respect and no personal attack
> to you Mark, STUPID. Numerology is not numerical analysis.
Little offense taken. I simply think that you're missing an (to me)
obvious relationship between human culture and human environment. Just one
example: say our environment, or a careful observation, discovered
relativistic effects prior to formulation of any Newton's laws. Even with
a similar progression of development, the equivalent of Newton's laws would
not necessarily be formulated or even accepted as anything but
approximation, or relativiy might come first in some form. Einstein didn't
derive three laws, but if the influence of the Christian church were
stronger and if his livlihood was tied up with it, what then?
>
> Three is good number. The first number after two, I think. Syllogims are
> formed as threes. Musical chords are in threes. If you've never had a
> threesome, then you still don't know what SEX is... ;-)
>
> Perhaps Newton chose the word "mass" because the Apple fell on his head
> during Sunday Mass. I'll not deny Religion can be influential and
> persuasive. As long as its not FORCED!
>
> >Similarly, QM is inextricably bound up with the modernist movement (in my
> >opinion), particularly evident in Braque and Picasso's cubism. How would
> >such a (postulated) difference in formulation be different in any
> >meaningful way from new manifestations of religion, when the latter must
> >satisfy the same human fears and desires as current religions and would
> >certainly find the same methods effective in controlling people and
> >defending them against reason and curiousity?
> >
> Perhaps God is independent of Humanity as well?
Frankly, I don't have a lot worhtwhile to say about God. Nor does anyone
else as far as I can tell.
>
> My original intent was not to say Religion isn't important. I'm just
> testing the bounds of human knowledge. If my view is shaped by writers
> from the past, then I want to know what they were capable of knowing.
> Seems to me that certain religions exist not to calm man's fears, but
> rather to feed upon them. Consider the Puritanistic attitudes or the
> Abortion vs Anti-Abortion debates and violences.
>
> New Religions? Everything changes. Where there is room for improvement,
> society and groups of people will. Just look at how long it took the
> Catholic Church to "forgive" Galileo! Certainly that means they saw some
> truth in his findings of the Cosmos.
..or they didn't want to be wearing this obvious intellectual bullseye for
eternity.
> If a Religion controls people from
> defending them against REASON and CURIOSITY, then don't bring it to me.
>
> There are many Religions to chose from. Using the laws of equal
> weighting in the absence of any preconceived biases, I think one needs a
> marketing brochure from each and every one of them. And I do wish they
> would stop asking for money. Just as there is separation of Religion and
> State in the US Constitution (if not in practice), they should find a
> way for separating it from Money as well. Can you imagine the audacity
> of a "god" to ask for money for the privilage of offering him a prayer?
> It's beyond logic. It's beyond reason. It's also the way of the World.
> All religions seem to work on the monetary donation principle.
That's because people do. This part of any religioun story would probably
be the same after the reset.
>
> Physics is new! Sort of. It's the idea of discovering Nature for Nature
> Herself. It is not run by the status quo or some conspirators.
Certainly such influences exist, or rather did before physics was
dismantled as a viable career path.
It is the
> search for the workings of Nature. Any real scientist worth half a grain
> his weight in gold would not deceive himself otherwise. Or so I
> subjectively expect. Reading other postings on the net is very mind
> expanding. The idea that Nature is fundamentally accessible to a hand
> full of Princeton or Cambridge Mathematicians/Physicists is the biggest
> LIE yet. It's like: Hey you pion-brained-no-measurable-IQ-individual,
> only <WE> understand Nature and we'll tell you that you can't understand
> Her even if we tried to explain Her to you. Reminds me of the debate
> over the Dead Sea Scrolls and the unwillingness of some to share the
> writings with other outside scholars. In science, I **hope** there
> are no such problems.
Everyone's got to pass judgement unnecessarily, it seems. Whoops, what was
that?
Van
what they say even if there is no reason at all to believe it.
--
Van | Internet Email | van...@netcom.com
Mahipal
that I used to complain about being having been removed.
It was apparently rebranded by the useless gods of GUIs.
-- Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple"... as in Loops, Syrup, Wood.
http://mahipal7638.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/meforce.pdf
/\ "If the line between science fiction and
/ science fact doesn't drive you crazy,
/\ \ then you're just not tr(y)ing!"
\ /\/\ / \ \/ Mahipal Virdy
/ == \ / \/\/ The |meforce> Paradox
\/