Skip to main content

View Diary: Science Friday: Interview with a Mad Scientist (191 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  HEY, HERE'S AN IDEA: (none)
    It's all bafflegab (or psycho-babble).  Humans know exactly this much about God and Science:  didley-squat.   Humans are, at best, the most arrogant of all of God's Creatures (or is that Cretins?) because they only think that they know...therefore they are fools.  Who says "time" actually exists?   Who says math is true, and actually reflects some universal reality?  Human minds have a terrible tendency towards self-centeredness and ego-aggrandizement, and this is reflected in everything cerebral, spiritual, or scientific that we do......up to and including this post.  It's probably just some evolutionary quirk of fate.....

    Here's what the All-Knowing Mystical I postulates:  shit happens, and has always happened.   Greed and determination for self-survival and satisfaction is about all that is needed to explain human behavior.  This isn't to say that some humans aren't quite cunning in their drive to achieve their (in their own mind's eye) elevation to God-like status among their peers, and there are as many ways to do that as there are peer groups and social cliques.  

    Suppose the entire universe was always travelling at the speed of light?  Maybe that's why it doesn't vary, and nothing can exceed it, because there is only one speed.  And it's always been that speed, and always will be.   Maybe that's why there isn't a Creator.  Or maybe modern physics is absolutely correct, but there is no Creator but there is an unknown Attractor out there (i.e. no Big Bang, but a Big Suck).   I can physically cut a key lime pie into exactly, precisely three perfectly equal pieces (each one thus being 1/3 of a whole pie) but I cannot express such a slice coherently in a mathematical sense (i.e. 1/3 = .33333 forever....what is fondly termed an irrational number).  Maybe we're all just chocolate cupcakes...who knows?   Go ahead, prove me wrong.  Betch'ya can't.....

    Because as soon as you try to, then we'll have to first come to a common agreement on the meaning of the words used to create the operational definitions, and who's to say that those definitions are correct?   You see where I'm going?    

    My nine-year-old son has recently taken an interest in things mechanical, and takes apart the old lawnmower engine and puts it back together again, and it runs (those old vertical-shaft Tecumseh engines are really durable!).  So he does conceptually understand the rudiments of mechanical design of the "lawnmower universe" and the deepest, darkest secrets within.  With a little bit of instruction and guidance I could show him how to shave the cylinder head down a bit or rig up a fuel-injection system and thus increase the performance output of such engine.  But he's still not a mechanical engineer (i.e. doesn't understand what/why a compression ratio is), nor is he a chemical engineer (i.e. doesn't comprehend the intricacies of valent or co-valent bonds in the gasoline molecule), nor is he a physicist (shall I go on?).

    Here's the bottom line of what might be true for all of us:  we exist, as do others.  Each of us, in our own mind, creates a vision of what reality is like, what the universe is.  Therefore we are all Gods.   The problems arise when we start growing proud and competitive, and desire and demand to feel special, rather than thankful.   Or perhaps there really is nothing to feel thankful about?   We've eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and therefore know of and fear death.  Who wants to perish and miss out on all the exciting developments that will occur after we're gone?  Or perhaps what we call life is really death.  Maybe this is what death is, and when we die, only then do we get to live.   Of course, then life might have to be defined as "existence without conciousness", sort of like the universal experience of a rock.  

    Question:  if we were rocks, and did have a conciousness, would our creator be the great bearded rock in the sky?  And, more importantly, would we exhibit aggressive, reptilian desires to spread "our way of life" to the rocks of Iraq if, for instance, the main economic export of that country had been pickles and lettuce?

    •  irrational (none)
      erm... 1/3 isn't an irrational number, you just expressed it as a ratio right there. 1/3 can't be written as a decimal with a finite number of digits, but that's just a way of saying it can't be x/10 or y/100 or z/1000 or... where x, y, and z are whole numbers.

      An irrational number is one that can't be expressed as a ratio of any two whole numbers, not just one that can't be expressed as a whole number and a power of ten.

      Finem respice et principiis obsta—Consider the end, and thwart the beginning

      by Del C on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 03:17:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Anti-scientific and anti-intellectual. Spare me. (none)
      So the alternative to science is sophomoric brain-in-a-vat handwaving? Piffle. I choose to judge philosophies by their utility, and that is one of the more useless ideas that people fling about.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site