A UNIVERSE OF MYSTERIES: Why aren't there suns, planets and galaxies made of antimatter?
Image: NASA
More In This Article
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Our September 2009 special issue on origins contains articles on 57 innovations and insights that shape our world today. They include some big ones, like the origin of life, the universe and the mind; sobering stories, like mad cow disease and HIV; and whimsical tales, like paper clips and cupcakes. This past week, we've posted a dozen additional online-only origins: the open-plan office space, fruit ripening, malaria, the computer mouse, atmospheric oxygen, hatred, wine, dogs, rubber boots, zero and, of course, Scientific American . Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical astrophysicist and popularizer perhaps best known for his book, The Physics of Star Trek, describes his origins symposium held this past spring at Arizona State University. Our origins landing page contains links to some that appear in the magazine.
To end our weeklong look at beginnings, we present eight phenomena whose origins are unknown or lack a definitive narrative of their start. The list is by no means complete, and Scientific American readers are sure to have their own favorite mysteries. Share them with us in Comments
[Slide Show: 8 Phenomena That Defy Explanation]
See what we're tweeting about
107 Comments
Add CommentI posit that "sex" exists as a way to insure evolution. Without "sex," organisms could basically clone themselves and evolutionary changes would be limited compared to changes induced by mixing strands from both sexes. Without the ability to evolve, organisms would be subject to extinction from even relatively minor changes in the environment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjaqcp
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis deals with science, from a science publication. Leave your god out of it. Science can niether prove nor disprove the existence of a god, nor does it try to. It only seeks to explain the physical world that surrounds us all.
jaqcp
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is an article about science, from a science publication. Leave your god out of it. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god, nor does it try to. It only seeks to explain the physical world that surrounds us all.
jaqcp
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is an article about science, from a science publication. Leave your god out of it. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god, nor does it try to. It only seeks to explain the physical world that surrounds us all.
jaqcp
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is an article about science, from a science publication. Leave your god out of it. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god, nor does it try to. It only seeks to explain the physical world that surrounds us all.
"the fact is that there are many aspects of God's Creation that Science will never adequately explain or understand"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. That's not a fact. Look up "fact" sometime.
2. It "will never"? You know this how? You're a time traveller, and have been to the end of time and know how it all goes?
I would say that with that attitude, you're right. If we decide we will never know, then what is the point of trying at all? Anyway, it's easier to not learn anything, and just rely on the primitive bits of knowledge gleaned by a handful of people thousands of years ago. Really amazing knowledge such as...
No flaming, you are entitled to your opinion. But wouldn't your argument apply the the other side as well? It makes no one any wiser to believe in a god simply because we don't know everything about science yet?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjoem5636, I believe that is pretty much the standard view. It makes perfect sense and there is a lot of direct observational evidence to back the theory up now. It should be said, I suppose, that for smaller simpler organisms evolutionary rates have been sufficiently high as to insure survival in changing environments. However, for larger more complex organisms, there has to be a greater "pool" of genetic resources to pull beneficial characteristics from in order to meet the demands of changing environments. Here I'm including competition against other species in the "environment", btw. Incorporating genetic material from other organisms (mates) supplies the needed additional genetic material.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjaqcp, I believe you are almost certainly right that science will never explain everything. However, as has been pointed out, God's existence is a belief, not a fact. Science itself MUST reject God's existence as a fact since there is no proof of God's existence. It doesn't mean people (even scientists) cannot believe in God. It's just the way the rules of scientific inquiry have to be in order for science to be effectively applied to the universe around us. Science and religion must be separate unless a way to test theories of the divine is developed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo the point: The universe could have been created by an intelligent designer 5 min ago with just the right attributes to make it look now as it does. Perfectly consistent with all possible observations.
However, that theory just isn't useful for prediction/control. While it certainly could be true, I don't see its value, except perhaps for emotional solace.
Explaining is easy; modeling is hard. Explaining is useless; modeling can be useful for prediction/control. That's the challenge for ID advocates--how is ID useful?
What I have noticed in the winter, more than anything else, is the habit of the human nose to secrete copious amounts of mucous, when one inhales cold air and is very unlikely (due to the bulky nature of winter clothing) to have a tissue handy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe runny nose gets wiped by fingers, hands, sleeves, etc.. Any germs that were on those surfaces get transmitted to the nasal passages quickly, via direct contact and by the process of sniffling.
It certainly should not be a surprise that colds spread quickly during cold months.
I am under the impression that a great many things, including some rather fundamental ones, remain unexplained. For example, do we know what force, such as gravity, is? We know what it does, but what is it composed of?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAren't a great many questions, some seemingly fundamental, unanswered? For example, do we know what gravity is? I guess we know what it does, but what it actually is, that's a mystery, right? Do we know what any force is, as opposed to what it does?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispawhite-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisya there is tons of questions about Nature that science has yet been able to answer. but a gap in knowledge does not automatically mean that god is the answer. science will likely eventually be able to answer that question and god will once again be pushed back, while religians (those that are religious) scramble to change their interpretations of god to fit the science. this has been going on since Gailileo confirmed Copernicus' hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. and those brave enough to seek the real Truth, through science, will continue to ascend towards enlightenment. those continuing to cling to the safety blanket of an impossible salvation will be pushed further and further to the fringe, finally unable to reconcile the findings of science with their belief in god. I imagine they will be forced to resort to extreme fundamentalism, possibly advocating nuclear war in order to facilitate their so called rapture and salvation.
Gravity is described by Einstein's equations of special relativity, basically saying that any amount of mass creates a depression in the space-time "fabric". Large masses, such as the sun, produce larger depressions, and therefore have stronger gravity. It is still an incomplete explanation, and the image of the sun sitting on a piece of fabric while the planets spin around in a perpetual whirlpool is most likely not correct, but its the best we can do with our limited perceptions. And yes, special relativity is still a work in progress, and may eventually be proven wrong. That's how science works, the truly open-minded endevour.
Thank you for reminding me about general relativity, which I wish I knew more about, and I wsn't thinking about religion when I posted the comment. I am in awe of science and how much as been learned in the last 500 years. I would only take issue with your claim that science is the only road to truth when there are other perspectives whose truth is no less valid than science. An emotion, for example, can be observed scientifically as activity in the brain but the scientist can't feel the emotion; that's the perspective of the person experiencing it. I think it's important for all of us to honor the perspectives available to us, one of the most important being science. Thanks again for your response to my comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisULTRAHIGH-ENERGY COSMIC RAYS... super fast communication between galaxies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHANDEDNESS... organic molecules are more stable in liquid in one form, but not the other... therefore, life did not had much choice of which of the mirror images to choose for its building blocks...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with joem5636. A species that produces less mutations will win over in the short term, because more of the organisms will be fully functional. But producing more mutations will produce more positive mutations that will win over in the long term because the species will evolve new functionality. Sexual reproduction is superior to "middle of the road" asexual mutations because its not all random: organisms evolve sexual selection where the females can "cherry pick" the "fittest" males to reprodce with. (This is loosely speaking. Take for example how Salmon have evolved sexual selection.) With a social species, like ours, there can be social influence over sexual selection to produce the "fittest" (predatory) social organisms. (Which according to history is not usually a good thing.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsidering man has not been around long at all, that we have discovered as much as we have about 'Creation' in such a short time...Its looking pretty good that science will discover all. It will just take time, there's plenty left.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Its looking pretty good that science will discover all."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjabes,
THAT requires A LOT of FAITH! Without discussing the existence of a creator, let me say I have no confidence that mankind (the creators of the system of observation/conclusion we call "science") will ever be clever enough to "discover all." We will observe and draw many correct and incorrect conclusions, but we will NEVER discover ALL.
I have two questions or comment/questions for the scientific community. 1. If the Big Bang happened about 14 billions years ago, and we can "see" the products of the the Big Bang through various telescopes that happened at that "time", then how did we get here before the Big Bang? 2. With the knowledge of what we call "super-conductors" and their efficiency at extremely low temperatures, why are the benefits of super-conductors (0 resistances) no being used on the International Space Station?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have two questions or comment/questions for the scientific community. 1. If the Big Bang happened about 14 billions years ago, and we can "see" the products of the the Big Bang through various telescopes that happened at that "time", then how did we get here before the Big Bang? 2. With the knowledge of what we call "super-conductors" and their efficiency at extremely low temperatures, why are the benefits of super-conduction (0 resistances, etc.) not being used on the International Space Station?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy must science reject something it can't prove? Evolution itself has no 'proof' just interesting evidence. I personally have a problem with the idea of the first life form having a built in ability to reproduce. Run the math on that my friend. I, on the otherhand, like the idea in Isaiah 40:22 (circa 732 B.C.) which says: There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, ... the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze". Eerily accurate for an ancient civilization. How do you suppose they knew the earth was round thousands of years before anyone else? Or that bit about space being stretched(present tense) like a fine gauze. I wonder how an ancient civilization of farmers knew the universe was expanding. There are lots of scientific principles in the bible that explain things long before the scientific community could. Thats a piece of evidence that no scientific mind should quickly dismiss.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is wrong with the old high school explanation:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSex provides the new organisms with two sets of genes to choose from. So this allows for more variety and therefore gives a better chance to successful mutations.
While not a proof it's pretty convincing.
jarred7747 > How do you suppose they knew the earth was round thousands of years before anyone else?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. "circle of the earth,"
The word "circle" suggests a very primitive view of a flat circle not a solid sphere. Circle is what you more or less see if on a flat plane or ocean.
2. The stories collectively known as Bible were written, compiled and modified over a period of thousands of years and I don't know when this particular piece was written. But it is quite likely that some people have reasoned that Earth is a sphere thousands of years ago. The arguments are pretty much straight forward. And less complicated than the incredible engineering and science achievements of say Chinese several thousands years ago.
You are confusing the level of human knowledge thousands of years ago with the relatively recent dark ages of Christian church suppression of science and thinking in general.
One missed one of the most important mystery's, the dual-slit experiment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne missed one of the most important mystery's, the dual-slit experiment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Science can niether prove nor disprove the existence of a god, nor does it try to."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, please. Modern science simply assumes a priori there is no God and proceeds from there.
The dirty little secret is, science can't answer any questions of cosmological origins because it is impossible to know if we are able to make all necessary observations. SA had an article some months ago about how cosmologists in the far future will be unable to deduce a big bang because they will not be able to observe expansion of the universe.
The question of cosmological origins handwaves into existence the totally unwarranted assumption that the physics of the universe as currently observed has held, without change, for all of its history.
Consider the idea that you dont get cetain protiens during winter, your milk supply will be subject to the same problems. The seasonal nature of flu viruses will be connected to milk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIQ214 wins again.
Actually Male and Female are separated at superposition. The Universe is debris of change in possibility. The difference in Sex is simply change through superposition one separated from the other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuperpositional Change? A divided by Zero equals Not A (NOT A being a Number set unrelated to A except at superposition).
What we should be asking is what does life look like at Superposition?
Frankly String Theory has solutions for all of these.
I know this is speculative, but to me it seems extremely likely that language emerged organically with the help of mirror neurons. When a primitive man made a sound, a fellow man would have felt what he would have felt had he made that sound (gesture, facial experssion, etc.) himself. Combined with intelligence and time, and I expect this alone would lead to our complex language.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course this leads to the question: was there an original, single, naturally emergent language? but thats much more complicated
Sierra9093: Regarding your question #1, see our article at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=misconceptions-about-the-2005-03
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfrgough: "Oh, please. Modern science simply assumes a priori there is no God and proceeds from there. ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this---------------------------
Uhm, modern science doesn't really assume anything. That's why it's called science.
If it assumed a bearded guy with a thunderous voice, sitting on a cloud, then it would be called religion.
The rest of your post is mostly nonsense.
regarding spontaneous laguage, my young twin brothers as toddlers went through a period speaking their own language to each other, giving over slowly to English. I understand that's a common occurance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisregarding spontaneous laguage, my young twin brothers as toddlers went through a period speaking their own language to each other, giving over slowly to English. I understand that's a common occurance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMissed one: The strange convergence of general relativity and quantum mechanics. One is a macro theory and predicts accurately the action of matter on space and time. Quantum mechanics deals with particle fields. Where are we going to find a particle, and associated particle field associated with matter, which distorts time and space?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour God is the God of the Gaps. You posit that God exists because there will always be gaps in human knowledge that you can attribute to God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHardly a deity worthy of worship
When I think about what are supposed to be God's attributs, i realise that these attributs indicate that or God cannot exist or God don't have the attributs that religions give him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy all that complexity in the Univers and the laws that govern it ? Why, being almighty, God didn't build Univers to be simple and not so complex. When we will know and understand everything about Univers we will have created God.
Since then we can always dream about Him ...!
All I'm going to say here is... the idea that decades of observing our universe indicates that it is unlikely that there are anti suns etc. in another pocket of the universe is just preposterous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat would be like saying... Because the ant in my right pocket has no capability of seeing the ant in my left pocket, it is unlikely that the ant in my left pocket even exists!
In that case, it's just as unlikely that the ant in my right pocket exists!
p.s. Why should one deny the existence of God due to a lack of evidence? There is a lack of evidence of a lot of things that scientists believe, but they work to prove it anyway! To me, the fact that everything exists is perfectly enough proof that there is some form of higher consciousness. Whether or not it is aware that we exist is another question entirely, however.
All I'm going to say here is... the idea that decades of observing our universe indicates that it is unlikely that there are anti suns etc. in another pocket of the universe is just preposterous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat would be like saying... Because the ant in my right pocket has no capability of seeing the ant in my left pocket, it is unlikely that the ant in my left pocket even exists!
In that case, it's just as unlikely that the ant in my right pocket exists!
p.s. Why should one deny the existence of God due to a lack of evidence? There is a lack of evidence of a lot of things that scientists believe, but they work to prove it anyway! To me, the fact that everything exists is perfectly enough proof that there is some form of higher consciousness. Whether or not it is aware that we exist is another question entirely, however.
"Why should one deny the existence of God due to a lack of evidence? "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't that lack of evidence and lack of answers about Univers that from the dawn of time push humankind to seek answers from God.
In this XXI century mankind looks much more like Gods for humans leaving during cave age.
Keep in mind that there are dozens of gods and goddesses worshipped around the world, all having equal claim to creation and all having the exact same amount of evidence to back their claim. Which deity are we arguing about? 8->
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd then there are the disagreements within each religion. Christianity alone has over 33,000 different denominations (as of the year 2000), Only the fundamentalists believe that the Bible is literal and inerrant. But fundamentalists may represent as few as 25% of all Christians. The majority of Christians simply do not believe that the creation story in Genesis is literally true.
Science is limited to those things that can be counted and measured. For an idea to be accepted as true, evidence must be provided to support it. Thats the way the game is played.
Religion has no limits or rules. Anyone can believe anything for any reason.
Fred
It's quite possible, as you note, for a person to be both a scientist and a Christian. I consider myself to be a Christian fascinated by science. But far be it for me to ridicule science when it is based on observable facts and replicable evidence. Only when it becomes speculation can I afford to be skeptical, whether in the scientific or religious realm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reach of science into the unknown is inevitable. We are consumed by a desire to know more and to explain more. Unfortunately, we are limited by barriers of time and space. We can't know it all.
But what a thrill it is to watch and learn while scientists search for what is real and what can be both observed and predicted.
I would have to say, sir, that the polytheists are merely connecting with multiple facets of the same creative energy which monotheists consider a "One" energy entity. Despite the fact they believe in a trinity...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Father (God), The Son (The Sun/Proton), The Holy Spirit (The Consciousness/The People/The Electron)
By golly, there are certainly more than eight unsolved mysteries... why did that cute girl in the seventh grade fancy another boy despite endless dreams to the contrary?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHandedness: Some years ago, Science magazine published a paper pointing out that there are lefties who curl their hand to write, and other lefties who don't (I am of the latter persuasion). There are also rightie-curlers, although they are rare. No explanation was offered. Has there been any current research on this? FYI, when I'm confronted with a new task requiring handedness, I don't know, in advance, which hand will want to do the job -- it just happens, one hand or the other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt all seems very creative and beautiful. Even the virus looks beautiful. And it seems fun. Life would be so boring without mystery!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat if He made it complex for the sake of the fun of letting us try to figure it out. I think maybe He has a sense of the ridiculous and also may be a bit whimsical about some things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do have a problem with the anger I sense in some of the responses. I happen to believe and have a testimony of the actuality of a supreme being I call Heavenly Father. If someone else can't conceive of or believe it, it's no skin off my nose .
Jill in TX
It never ceases to entertain me that when ever there is the heading "Defies explanation" one can expect to find endless debate on religion, God, and the Bible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd I am not one to shy away from taking a few shots at those terribly unprepared Christians when it comes to them playing the same game as science.
But the issue of God is a little different.
I am not in the least bit religious, nor do I entertain the existence of any kind of god, other than in a vague philosophical sense.
My children, curious as to why their grandmother refers to me as an atheist, ask me about God and just as I had done about Santa, I chose to hold back on destroying what ever sense of security they may gain from the notion for a time.
But I do leave them with is a whole lot more constructive.
I never tell someone to stop believing in God. My issues lie with the belligerent attitude toward science when it displays nature the way it is, as it is , and not the way it is found within the first 48 or so pages of the Bible.
You can chose to believe in God all you wish, but you must recognise that where there is the requisite to believe, there lies the utter absence of evidence. Belief otherwise would not be the cornerstone of religion in the first place were there sufficient evidence.
my focus, much to my mother in laws dismay, is to teach my kids to treat every human institution with equal doses of scrutiny. There is nothing exempt and there are no exceptions.
As with such mysteries as these you can either attempt to explain them as science does or you can do as any preacher would and simply explain them away.
Sex merges two extreme competencies by bringing together vertically equipped characters (e.g. males who are of the hunter ilk and sharpened [single threaded] operation) and laterally equipped gene expressions (e.g. females who are of the many-things-at-a-time [multi-threaded] parallel processors). The vertical thread contains fewer genes because they do not need excess. This is in order to ensure primal focus on "hunter" objectives. On the other hand, lateral threads require a massive pool of genes because they engender lower velocity e.g. being the procreator and maintenance reservoir.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObviously the male is then poorly equipped for non-vertical adversity and the female to non-parallel adversity.
Both roles are important in their respective contexts (e.g. it would not be desirable for the pro-creator to play a vertical role in the pro-creation condition and conversly for the vertically expressed to function in a pro-creative role. Thus two very important survival schemes have been devised by nature to separate two roles that are vital to survival of the whole species.
Why is it believed that humans have a common ancestor with chimpanzees? 99% common genetics but different chromosome count. Down syndrome connection? On what basis is this 6 million years ago derived? What is the science for the 6 million years ago?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMatter and anti-matter. If we saw a anti-matter galaxy in our distant universe how would we know it was anti-matter and not what is ordinary matter to us? Light from it would be the same. Rotation do to gravity would be the same. Unless there was some boundary where matter and anti-matter was interacting giving off gamma radiation, how would we know?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hate the unscientific responses from all the 'scientists' out there on the existence of a creator. The idea that people invented god out of some psychological necessity has no foundation in any solid evidence. The fact that there are many religions and many opinions of the bible do not bear on the question of the bibles being the word of God. It would be like concluding that a pottery shard doesn't exist because no one seems to agree on what it came from.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere seem to be very few scientific minds out there capable of looking at the bible from a scientific perspective, that is, without biasing their mindset with a prior opinion. There is a tremendous amount of accurate scientific information in the bible.
Take the genesis account of creation for example. If you consider the 7 days to refer to 7 periods of time (the phrase 'in my day' refers to a period of time rather than a literal day) and if you take into consideration that the account is from the perspective of someone standing on the earth then you'll find that the order and description of events fit very well with our current understanding.
Also consider these scientific tidbits in the scriptures:
The universe is expanding, space is a void, the earth is not supported by any object but rather rests in space:
"He is stretching out the north over the empty place,
Hanging the earth upon nothing" Job 26:7 (circa 1500 B.C.)
The earth is a sphere, the universe is expanding:
"There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell, " Isaiah 40:22 (circa 732 B.C.)
A fully accurate description of the water cycle:
"All the winter torrents are going forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth." Ecclesiastes 1:7 (before 1000 B.C.)
"For he draws up the drops of water;
They filter as rain for his mist" Job 36:27 (732 B.C.)
Regardless of if you believe in god or not that is alot of compelling evidence. On every scientific point the bible touches on (though it's by no means a scientific text book) it comes out accurate. I can't consider myself scientific WITHOUT taking that into consideration.
It is a curious fact that negative statements about the nature of truth are self contradictory. If I say there is no such a thing as truth the statement can only be false. If one equates god to universal truth the same applies. I don't really think that anyone can claim that no one can ever have personal phenomenal experience of universal truth or God. This truth can only be experienced or confirmed for an individual in the private domain. Otherwise it is just a blind belief backed up by empty rhetoric, just as a lot of scientific theories are. Science relates to the public domain and yet it must find intuitive confirmation in the private domain also. But no one will ever see a probability wave, or infinitesimal strings, or dark matter, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs it happens there is a methodology that has never been explored before that explores all possible structural varieties to phenomenal experience. It can bridge the gulf between empirical fact and intuitive insight. See www.cosmic-mindreach.com . It is not a belief system. It both requires and facilitates direct intuitive insight into the creative process. In this respect it can provide a fresh disciplined scientific approach to many vexing questions.
No. Those still travel at speed of light. If you want truly high speed communication, it should be using tachyon particle beams - particles that travel faster than light (photon particles).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo. Those still travel at speed of light. If you want truly high speed communication, it should be using tachyon particle beams - particles that travel faster than light (photon particles).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut of course, tachyons are still highly theoretical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe knowledge we have now is growing exponentailly. I find it hard to say where our journey of acquiring more knowledge will lead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope that I am here long enought to enjoy the ride.
Too funny...Why is this a religious debate? Because we have no knowledge of the topics to convey to each other? So we take a crack at the first target out there GOD.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur base of knowledge of the our universe is growing faster than we are evolving so I don't see how we can predict its discoveries much less it route.
"...There seem to be very few scientific minds out there capable of looking at the bible from a scientific perspective, that is, without biasing their mindset with a prior opinion...."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, there are many scientific minds capable of it. They are called archeologists and historians.
Over the last few decades, considerable evidence has been accumulated relating to the "historical" events described in the Bible.
And while much of the "history" in the Bible is either partially, or wholly inaccurate, we are getting a better picture of the political world at that time, and the purposes a Judah national/religious epic served.
And anyone, who can find "tremendous amount of accurate scientific information" in that epic, is..., well, "religious."
what? hey Mr. IQ14 you do know about pasteurization right? No, seasonal flu is not connected to milk. Also those of you out there who are for or against ID just grow up and leave each other alone you will never convince the other side of anything so arguing about your beliefs or lack of is a waste of time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBabies comprehend abstract concepts and language before they can speak just as a horse or a dog can understand commands but can not speak. Some people have vivid conceptual and visual memories that relate to abstract patterns of thought and behavior, going back to the cot before they could stand or talk. This indicates a well developed right brain intuitive capacity that may be innate and that is essential to learning left brain language in the social context of family.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding proton spin: Bohr founded the theory of the atom and the quantum mechanics that developed from it on a number of postulates one of which states that some of the traditional laws of physics do not apply within the atom. His basic postulates are consistent with a discontinuous universe where atoms are projected as independent space frames alternating with timeless quantum frames that are orthogonal to the integrated fabric of space and time. This scenario has never been explored because a spacetime continuum was already assumed. In the discontinuous scenario we are participants in a holographic movie of successive still space frames linked by light that defines external linear space with respect to the inner spherical space of each atom.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsistent with this the orbital angular momentum of the electron in the first hydrogen orbit MUST be zero. The electron recurs in the same relative position with respect to the proton space frame after space frame in the absence of energy injection to jump it into a higher orbit. There is no way to distinguish electron orbital revolution from proton spin without an external frame of reference that is experimentally provided by a magnetic field. In the holographic movie however it is provided by other atoms that are synchronously projected by a non-local universal aspect common to all atoms. They are linked up by light that defines external linear space frame by frame with respect to the inner spherical space of each atom. From an external perspective atoms can rotate randomly over a succession of frames with respect to one another. There is nothing to align them. Proton spin in this external perspective thus differs from the internal perspective where electron, proton and photon are intimately linked by a universal set. The one perspective is random. The other is not. See Unified Theories, Fantasy & Cosmic Order at www.cosmic-mindreach.com.
Re: matter and antimatter: In a discontinuous universe two mutually exclusive variants are possible to the intimate linking up of electron, proton and photon by a confined Universal Set (like quarks). The antimatter variant is reversed and implicitly degenerate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe:"The antimatter variant is reversed and implicitly degenerate. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat do you base that on?
The neutron(u d d) decays to a proton(u u d) and an electron and an electron neutrino. All of which are assigned a 1/2 spin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would seem that a down(d) quark is made up of an up(u) quark and an electron and a electron neutrino.
Yet the down(d) quark is considered a stable quark. It would also seem not to be stable in the case of neutron decay.
Not exactly a waste of time. I find it mind expanding. I must admit though, I have a bias for ID. I think those rabid anti-ID people do not read any book on religion and theology while ID people generally read both science and religion literature as evidenced by their being conversant in both science and religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy comment needed to be corrected as follows:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA free neutron(u d d) decays to a proton(u u d) and an electron and anti-electron neutrino. All of which are assigned a 1/2 spin.
It would seem that a down(d) quark is made up of an up(u) quark and an electron and an anti- electron neutrino.
Yet the down(d) quark is considered a stable quark. It would also seem not to be stable in the case of free neutron decay.
Keep God out of the laboratory, please!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@OneRyt, "There is a lack of evidence of a lot of things that scientists believe". You have no concept of what you are talking about. Science is about proof not belief. One might form a hypothesis based on existing evidence that points in a certain direction, but until it is proven, it is not a theory, and science does not assume it to be true. "To me, the fact that everything exists is perfectly enough proof that there is some form of higher consciousness." So, by extension, another even higher form of intelligence was required to create your god, as so on ad infinitum. Please consider for a moment that your statement is based on your lack of scientific knowledge and your lack of understanding of both the scientific process (illustrated by your previous statement) and simple logic. It does not reflect the true nature of the universe or humanity's understanding of it. It is rather arrogant to assume that because you don't understand something, no one else does. If you want to believe in god, that is your choice, but you haven't been granted the authority to determine what is considered "proof". This forum does not sound like the right place for you. It is for those who are curious about the nature of the universe and aren't afraid of the answers. Churches are for people who want to be shielded from reality in order to validate their particular world view. Somewhere there is a pew waiting for you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Keep God out of the laboratory, please!!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSilly you. You can no more keep God out of the laboratory than existence itself.
". . . You have no concept of what you are talking about. Science is about proof not belief. . . ."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can not have any kind of proof without some kind of belief. Such as a belief in science and the evidence of science.
Quote: Re:"The antimatter variant is reversed and implicitly degenerate. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat do you base that on?
Atoms have both a universal and a particular aspect consistent with quantum correlation as well as de Broglies pilot wave and Bohms quantum potential. The universal aspect is confined like quarks and intimately links the particular electron, proton and photon that represent closed active interfaces or centers in each separate atom. There are only two possible ways that this universal linking can structurally occur. In one direction this universal linking is consistent with the particular closed centers. In the opposite direction it is reversed with respect to the particular centers and inconsistent with them, accounting for reversal of charge and antimatter. Because it is inconsistent it is degenerate. See the website article Atoms, Space-time and System 3. See also the article on System 3 that illustrates the structural dynamics of a primary atom. There are other related articles there as well.
The neutron is a regenerative variant associated with fusion processes in the centers of stars. One of the universal active interfaces perceptually transposes accounting for the reversal of one quark. If you are interested send an email and I will send you an article on the mathematical foundations of atomic structure and quantum mechanics as they developed historically.
I wish I had the minds of all who speak apon this topic?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wish I had the minds of all who speak of this topic
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"However, as has been pointed out, God's existence is a belief, not a fact. Science itself MUST reject God's existence as a fact since there is no proof of God's existence.! It doesn't mean people (even scientists) cannot believe in God. It's just the way the rules of scientific inquiry have to be in order for science to be effectively applied to the universe around us. Science and religion must be separate unless a way to test theories of the divine is developed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"jaqcp, I believe you are almost certainly right that science will never explain everything. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow can the above statement be actually verified in itself?
"However, as has been pointed out, God's existence is a belief, not a fact."
How so?
"Science itself MUST reject God's existence as a fact since there is no proof of God's existence."
How do you go about verifying this statement?
"It doesn't mean people (even scientists) cannot believe in God. It's just the way the rules of scientific inquiry have to be in order for science to be effectively applied to the universe around us."
Perhaps the rules of scientific inquiry themselves need to be actually verified then, since science cannot seemingly actively verify all and everything...
"Science and religion must be separate unless a way to test theories of the divine is developed."
So, how would a scientific mind go on about developing a test...?
@DarrenAIW, ""Science itself MUST reject God's existence…"How do you go about verifying this statement?" A negative hypothesis can not be proven. Various religions have exploited that problem in order to persecute "witches". For example, if a suspect could be loosely associated with strange happenings it was proof that they were a witch, if they weren't it was proof that they were a powerful witch, able to hide their identity. As a result logic requires that the onus of proof is on those that assert the affirmative or existence of. Religion has had thousands of years to prove their case and have failed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Perhaps the rules of scientific inquiry themselves need to be actually verified then, since science cannot seemingly actively verify all and everything...," that statement is a "begging the question" fallacy. It presupposes that there is a way to "verify all and everything". In fact the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal puts limits on what can be known at any one time about a subject. As far as science is concerned, it has been verified as a formal process. The technological world around you is evidence of that. Religion, on the other hand, has no process. It has dictators who determine what is fact and demand of their congregation absolute, unquestioning obedience under pain of eternal torment. They are in essence, terrorist organizations.
"So, how would a scientific mind go on about developing a test...?" one proof might be a physical phenomenon that is impossible based on the physical properties of the universe. I repeat, impossible, not improbable and not something that is currently poorly understood. For example, a person could pray to grow an arm back and then find himself with a new arm the next day. It is not possible to grow back an arm, but certainly within the supposed powers of god so that would be solid evidence. So far god's medical "miracles" have all been within the abilities of the body and modern medicine. Of course, an obvious proof would be for god to actually show up and represent himself.
Occam's Razor provides a rule of thumb when it comes to hypotheses stating that given two explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest one wins. The god "concept" is a more complex explanation than the ones proposed by science because it requires that god's existence be proven, which has not been done.
@37818, "You can not have any kind of proof without some kind of belief" That is an "Equivocation" fallacy. You are playing with the word belief. In this context belief implies the holding of a proposition to be true despite a lack of evidence. It differs from "knowledge" in the sense that knowledge is a "justified" belief. I should have used the word faith, but I was referencing a quote. Science is a formal process and its theories are testable. Moreover, because it is objective, it does not matter who performs the tests or where they are done as long as all the criteria for the tests are met; the result will be the same. I may not have performed the experiment myself, but because of the checks and balances, I can have confidence in the results. Much like getting into an elevator or airplane; I don't need to test the engineering myself as I know that there is a process to ensure safety. This is in stark contrast to religion where people reading the same book can come to completely different conclusion yet they all claim to be acting with the direct authority of god. Accidents do happen in engineering and in science, but the mistakes made are discovered by other scientists; in religion, mistakes made are not discovered by religious authorities (or at least not admitted too), they are discovered by science or the courts. Science is self-correcting whereas religion lives in constant denial.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this". . . See the website article Atoms, Space-time and System 3. See also the article on System 3 that illustrates the structural dynamics of a primary atom. There are other related articles there as well."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/System3.html
Okay . . . if you say so.
"@37818, 'You can not have any kind of proof without some kind of belief' That is an 'Equivocation' fallacy. You are playing with the word belief. In this context belief implies the holding of a proposition to be true despite a lack of evidence."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo,it you who is making the equivcation fallacy. A belief is something that is based on fact. A belief does not create fact. It is you who who is using the meaning of "belief" to be "holding of a propostion to be true dispite the lack of evidence."
In your quote, "You have no concept of what you are talking about. Science is about proof not belief." That was how you intended the meaning of "belief." But that is not its sole meaning. The fact is there is no science, no knowledge without some kind of belief. And I did say "kind of belief."
". . . knowledge is a 'justified" belief.' Yes, and factual "Information" is not "knowledge" until it is believed.
"@DarrenAIW, ""Science itself MUST reject God's existence…"How do you go about verifying this statement?" A negative hypothesis can not be proven."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the case of [a] "God" how do you know this... ? What experiment are you using to verify or deny the existence of?
"Various religions have exploited that problem in order to persecute "witches". For example, if a suspect could be loosely associated with strange happenings it was proof that they were a witch, if they weren't it was proof that they were a powerful witch, able to hide their identity. As a result logic requires that the onus of proof is on those that assert the affirmative or existence of. Religion has had thousands of years to prove their case and have failed."
What's "logic" got to do with [a] "God"?
""Perhaps the rules of scientific inquiry themselves need to be actually verified then, since science cannot seemingly actively verify all and everything...," that statement is a "begging the question" fallacy. It presupposes that there is a way to "verify all and everything". In fact the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal puts limits on what can be known at any one time about a subject. As far as science is concerned, it has been verified as a formal process. The technological world around you is evidence of that. Religion, on the other hand, has no process. It has dictators who determine what is fact and demand of their congregation absolute, unquestioning obedience under pain of eternal torment. They are in essence, terrorist organizations."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBefore lapsing into silly silly hypoerbole, I thought science was an *ongoing* experience in conducting experiments... delving into what is known, and >just as important< what is unknown... if you don't have the data to test something, you don't simply assume it doesn't exist... unless you've a closed mind...
What makes you think you can't verify all and everything?
"@37818, "You can not have any kind of proof without some kind of belief" That is an "Equivocation" fallacy. You are playing with the word belief. In this context belief implies the holding of a proposition to be true despite a lack of evidence. It differs from "knowledge" in the sense that knowledge is a "justified" belief. I should have used the word faith, but I was referencing a quote. Science is a formal process and its theories are testable. Moreover, because it is objective, it does not matter who performs the tests or where they are done as long as all the criteria for the tests are met; the result will be the same. I may not have performed the experiment myself, but because of the checks and balances, I can have confidence in the results. Much like getting into an elevator or airplane; I don't need to test the engineering myself as I know that there is a process to ensure safety. This is in stark contrast to religion where people reading the same book can come to completely different conclusion yet they all claim to be acting with the direct authority of god. Accidents do happen in engineering and in science, but the mistakes made are discovered by other scientists; in religion, mistakes made are not discovered by religious authorities (or at least not admitted too), they are discovered by science or the courts. Science is self-correcting whereas religion lives in constant denial."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho's self?
Science is practised by man, and man is fallable...
Religion's only real problem is man's interpretation of things...
""So, how would a scientific mind go on about developing a test...?" one proof might be a physical phenomenon that is impossible based on the physical properties of the universe."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat physical properties of the universe are you referring to?
"I repeat, impossible, not improbable and not something that is currently poorly understood. For example, a person could pray to grow an arm back and then find himself with a new arm the next day. It is not possible to grow back an arm, but certainly within the supposed powers of god so that would be solid evidence. So far god's medical "miracles" have all been within the abilities of the body and modern medicine. Of course, an obvious proof would be for god to actually show up and represent himself."
...and where did you get the idea that "God" is a he?
It also appears you're using "literal" interpretations of what you've heard or read in religious texts...
A miracle can be viewed as some phenomena occuring beyond current understanding...
"Flame away, but the fact is that there are many aspects of God's Creation that Science will never adequately explain or understand. That does not make the Maker any less real or Divine. Nor does it make Man any more wise to reject the Lord simply because we do not understand everything He has done."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan you elaborate on the many aspects of God's Creation?
@DarrenAIW, "Flame away, but the fact is that there are many aspects of God's Creation that Science will never adequately explain or understand." How can the above statement be actually verified in itself?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"fact is that...", that is not a fact! It is a belief. You are entitled to your own beliefs not your own facts. You want it to be a fact? Prove it!
"That does not make the Maker any less real" how can you get any less real than not real? Conversely, a lack of understanding does not translate into proof.
"Nor does it make Man any more wise to reject the Lord simply because we do not understand everything He has done." ...and where did you get the idea that "God" is a he? It is wise to reject propositions that have failed to bare any fruit. Science has followed all the trails leading from the present back towards creation. None have led towards god. It is closed minded and delusional to hold on to a belief that not only has no supporting evidence but which contradicts all that we do know about the universe.
"Can you elaborate on the many aspects of God's Creation?" I don't know what you mean by that. There is no god's creation. How much more elaborate do you want me to be?
About religion and science:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEveryone needs a theory of everything to meaningfully integrate their experience. In general this is intuitively perceived by the right brain hemisphere of the neo-cortex. It is mute and holistic in its function. It does not rationalize in language. Rationalization is a left brain language function. In general the left brain deals with objective experience. The right brain deals with subjective experience. They are both fueled by the ancient limbic emotional brain which is essentially spiritual in character and primary to the recall process. There is solid scientific evidence for these three divisions to human experience that seek a mutual balance. For more see Inside Our Three Brains at www.cosmic-mindreach.com.
Religious theories of everything generally involve some concept of universal intelligence that transcends everyones birth and death. Scientific theories of everything generally relate to a Big Bang origin to space and time from absolutely nothing. This belief also transcends everyones birth and death even though it indicates that there is no transcending aspect to mind. There is no conclusive scientific proof for either interpretation in the objective public domain.
All experience is in some sense spiritual however. Few would deny that they have spirit. Spiritual experience is in the subjective private domain and can be as varied as the diversity of the universe itself. Proof ultimately comes down to what can be confirmed in phenomenal experience of some kind either in the public or private domain or both. Universal proof can not be contrived by left brain logic to the exclusion of right brain intuitive insight, either in science or in religion.
Quote from Einstein: I see on the one hand the totality of sense experiences, and, on the other, the totality of the concepts and propositions which are laid down in books. The relations between concepts and propositions among themselves and each other are of a logical nature, and the business of logical thinking is strictly limited to the achievement of the connection between concepts and propositions among each other according to firmly laid down rules, which are the concern of logic. The concepts and propositions get meaning, viz., content, only through their connection with sense-experiences. The connection of the latter with the former is purely intuitive, not itself of a logical nature. The degree of certainty with which this relation, viz., intuitive connection, can be undertaken, and nothing else, differentiates empty fantasy from scientific truth.
Quote from Planck: Anyone who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which scientists cannot dispense with. ... The pure rationalist has no place here.
A theoretical biologist, Vigen A. Geodakian, proposed a few hypotheses in this article: http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0408006.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a nutshell: males and females play different roles because of the low cost of providing millions of spermatozoa for the males compared to high cost per female egg.
As a result, males can be easily "sacrificed" when an abrupt evolutionary change occurs. This allows to find a good solution that can be then passed on to the females.
More or less.
There is plenty of proof of God's existence. It is more that we can't put God in a test tube and reproduce the results!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Tetrez, please give one example of proof of the existence of god. But before you start it would probably be worth while for you to understand what proof means;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
And it wouldn't hurt to understand how to form a logical proposition;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Your statement, "It is more that we can't put God in a test tube and reproduce the results!" makes it clear that you don't really understand either concept.
@Wier, sorry but you make a lot of assumptions and provide no evidence. What Einstein or Planck "thought" is irrelevant. Newton believed in homunculi; by combining chemicals in a test tube you could create a homunculus (small human). It is an "Appeal to Authority" fallacy to use someone's notoriety to support your proposition. The only thing that is important is the facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Few would deny that they have spirit." Unless you have proof that a spirit exists; it would be far more reasonable to proceed as though it doesn't. There are an infinite number of things that have no proof. Should we hold them all to be true? What if they contradict each other? So, if it's not possible to hold all things without proof to be true, then why should we hold this thing, the spirit, to be true? What special-ness does it have that exempts it from critical evaluation?
"public or private domain", I'm not aware of these domains? Are you saying that the laws of physics operate differently in these domains? Does each person have their own special law of gravitation? 'Cause that would be cool…
I understand the importance of intuition and imagination to inspire scientific pursuit. But be absolutely clear that it is only once those intuitions and imaginings are confirmed through the scientific process that they become theories. The theories themselves are not products of the imagination. They are the product of objective interrogation.
"Universal proof can not be contrived by left brain logic" That is why we have an objective process that standardizes measurements and defines a set of rules that apply to all people in all places. A scientific experiment done by a European can be replicated by an African, Asian, American, Australian, Christian, Jew, Man, Woman, Vegetarian, Meatetarian, etc simply by following the same parameters. That is universal. On the other hand, religions using the same book come to widely different conclusions. Various people who claim absolute authority and direct access to god seem to hold contradictory views. That isn't universal. It is delusional.
Robert Schmidt:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHad you read the website article I suggested you would see that there is irrefutable evidence for three distinct regions to human mental processes that seek to live in the same house together. There are references there to the pioneering work of Papez and MacLean. The Limbic System is in all the text books. Intuitive insight is not the same as imagination. See the split brain experiments of Roger Sperry for which he won the Nobel Prize, or the pioneering work of A. R Luria, W. Penfield, and many others. You are not exempt from how the nervous system works. You are emotionally identified with your own language. It is not impartial. It would be to your personal benefit to become aware of this.
You acknowledge only language based logic in your every statement and that is seriously flawed. Are we all supposed to be left-brain half wits because you say so, while you discredit profound observations by Einstein, Planck, Pauli, Shroedinger, de Broglie and others who together built the foundations of modern physics. Neils Bohr had the Yang Yin symbol on his coat of arms. Heisenberg was profoundly interested in the age old question of One and Many. None of them would agree with what you think is logic. It is well known that logic is based on un-provable axioms, linguistic categories and syllogism with roots going back to Aristotle. I can not believe that you are a serious scientist or that you are well versed in the sciences and their philosophical underpinnings.
You are of course entitled to your own little verbal world if you insist upon it. In my opinion it is just another blind religion.
@Weir, like so many pseudo-science junkies you have allowed the "ring" of truth and factoids deceive you into thinking the whole scam is the truth. I checked out your site and there is no evidence there what-so-ever. There is just a bunch of vagaries and half truths with no scientific support.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Intuitive insight is not the same as imagination", I don't believe that I said they were.
"You are emotionally identified with your own language. It is not impartial." sure, we are all biased. No doubt. And our language does play a role in how we think. I speak a little German and Czech so I can see that there is a difference in the way things are phrased that implies a different perspective. But, that is why we have science. It allows us to objectify and quantify our experiences in a way that transcends language. Please explain how language changes the meaning of this; E=mc².
"three distinct regions to human mental processes" this is akin to saying a pie has three pieces because when you cut it into three, there they are. This is derived from the epilepsy treatments that sever the interhemispheric links resulting in what appears to be two separately functioning brains. But, like the pie, when the hemispheres haven't been separated, you don't have two halves, you have a whole. When scientists talk about left and right brain they are speaking in generalities. There are large variations from this model in the general public and I am not talking about diseased brains. These are fully functional brains where hemispheres may be switched or processing of one function is done on the other side of the brain from "normal". Furthermore, one could talk about many more than three brains if one were to split off the various parts of the brain dedicated to processing individual sensory modalities. You didn't even mention the olfactory bulb which doesn't pass through the limbic system and displays the greatest variation of any part of the brain across species. The amazing thing about our brain is not in that it can be split, but how all the parts work together to create a unified experience.
@Weir "language based logic", is this opposed to grunt and groan logic? I am guessing here but I believe you are talking about, "first-order logic" which is the basis of math and philosophy. You really need to help me on this and explain why first-order logic is flawed. Hopefully your answer can help me with my taxes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"while you discredit profound observations by Einstein…," Again with the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy! Please look it up. This is really boring. Einstein was not a neuroscientist. Have you ever heard the expression, "we only use 10% of our brain?" It is attributed to Einstein and is completely false. Next you'll be quoting Darwin on Quantum Mechanics and Newton on biology. Regardless, even if he were a neuroscientist the only thing that would matter is what he proved. Relativity isn't a great theory because Einstein created it, he's a great scientist because he discovered Relativity (General & Special). His opinion may be very interesting but it is not a fact.
"None of them would agree with what you think is logic," well then they chose very strange careers seeing as science is based on first-order logic. Einstein didn't prove his theory of Special Relativity by saying, "You know, I have a very funny feeling…"
"It is well known that logic is based on un-provable axioms". The only thing that statement proves is that you don't know anything about "Formal Systems". It is true that axioms can not be proven within their domain but that doesn't mean they are baseless or derived from faith. In some cases they represent the defining properties of the system itself, e.g. a+b=b+a, is an axiom of arithmetic and defines the commutative property of addition. In other cases they are self evident, i.e. drawn from experience, e.g. it is possible to produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line. If you disagree with any particular axioms I would like to hear about them, otherwise this is a Straw Man fallacy.
"I can not believe that you are a serious scientist…" Once again, your beliefs are irrelevant to this conversation. I have been exploring computational neuroscience for the past seven years so I do know a bit about the brain. I'm not claiming to be an authority, or that my word means more than yours because of this; I'm just saying, I'm not out of my depth here so you'll need to try harder.
Robert Schmidt:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will make an effort at patience for your personal edification.
Logic and reason are implicitly functions of language. That should not be hard to grasp. In right handed people this is a left hemisphere function. In left handed people it is a right hemisphere function. Operations that sever the corpus callosum for the treatment of severe epilepsy have firmly established this over the last 40 years. There is also a lot of other supporting neurological evidence from brain lesions etc. The marsupial animals have no corpus callosum. The two hemispheres of the new brain relate independently to the ancient emotional brain, just as they do in split brain patients, yet they behave normally apart from some limitations that generally require special testing. Some people are born without a corpus callosum that connects the two neocortical hemispheres. There are some relatively rare anomalies. For example one woman lost the ability to speak because her motor area for speech was in the right hemisphere even though her other left brain functions associated with assimilating explicit thought and behavior were intact. Her intuitive right brain could not do this. The exceptions tend to prove the rule.
The triadic polar relationships of human thought and behavior have universal implications in structuring our social and economic organizations. They are delegated structural extensions of how we ourselves integrate experience. Otherwise they would not make common sense.
You ask me to look up an authority on the so-called Appeal to Authority fallacy while you claim to be a better authority on science than the founders of science. Excuse me for saying so but this can only be double talk nonsense.
Science derives from holistic intuitive insight that leads logic, not vice versa. Einstein had what he called the happiest day of his life when the thought came to him that a man falling did not feel gravity. It took him a long time to develop General Relativity from that holistic kernel of an idea that guided him. Max Planck called his universal quantum of action an act of desperation. It has no logical basis of derivation. It is intuitively essential. An intuitive idea of a little clock in motion led Prince Louis de Broglie to derive his wave equation of matter. He had no logical basis for equating the transformation formula for a clock to that of a wave. Neils Bohr took a quantum leap in asserting that some of the well established laws of physics do not apply within the atom. Quantum mechanics is inherently irrational. The quantum conjugate of the wave function is essential to experiment but without logical foundation apart from vague conjecture. Richard Feynman said that nobody understands quantum mechanics. You may hold Isaac Newton to ridicule for his interest in the hermetic tradition if you like but his intuitive quest was a mark of the genius that established the foundations of physics (and calculus independently of Leibniz). He devoted his later years to theological questions. Copernicus was a Catholic cleric. Kepler sought the music of the spheres. The list goes on. The most important contributors to science have been inspired by intuitive insight and not ruled by left brain logic. This is true of the brain sciences as well. Read a few of Wilder Penfields books. Or read The Man with a Shattered World by A. R Luria about a young Russian soldier who had the left parietal lobe of his brain destroyed by a bullet in the war, yet he was aware of his severe condition. Despite total amnesia, fractured vision and loss of the ability to speak he was able to reconstruct essentials of his life over a period of 25 years. There is no accounting for this by computational methods.
The quote you attribute to Einstein is a misquote that could have been started by any number of people. And Einstein did not prove his theories of relativity. General Relativity is not consistent with Machs principle or with quantum mechanics.
The mathematical rules of Quantum Mechanics are not commutative. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle is based on that fundamental fact.
If you google Richard Dedekinds Essays on the Theory of Numbers and study it carefully you will see that he presents very solid evidence that there is no such a thing as spatial continuity, including a continuous line. Think about the irrationality of pi. The circumference and diameter of a circle can not both be measured with complete accuracy using the same reference measures of length. Nevertheless the circle is there on the page.
With respect Robert, I have been a practicing professional engineer and scientist for over 50 years, a career that has penetrated deeply into the physical, biological, and socio-economic sciences as well as philosophies East and West. If your interests continue to drive you toward a scientific world view I think you should do a lot more homework in your own best interests. When you resort to sarcasm and ridicule it also does not do you justice. Good Luck.
@Weir, "while you claim to be a better authority on science than the founders of science", please indicate where I said that. This is yet another Straw Man fallacy. You are misrepresenting what I say in order to weaken my position. I made a point of stating that my relative knowledge of neuroscience did not grant me any special rights to the truth, which is more than you have done. The only thing your statement demonstrates is your desperation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Science derives from holistic intuitive insight that leads logic, not vice versa." Wrong. As I have stated, scientists use their intuition and imagination to inspire their work but only logic and the scientific method can determine the truthfulness of their insights. I can imagine a new house but the house doesn't exist until I build it.
"It has no logical basis of derivation." You are mistaking an intuitive grasp of a subject for a logic one. Quantum mechanics and relativity are not intuitive but they are completely logical and grounded with solid experimental evidence. "General Relativity is not consistent with ..." First General Relativity is not inconsistent with Machs principal. In fact Einstein's work was influenced by it. Second, Relativity does not have to be consistent with quantum mechanics or even classical mechanics as they describe different phenomenon with different frames of reference. What is important is that they are consistent within their respective domains. We still put satellites into orbit based on Newtonian physics even though it is incapable of explaining the orbit of Mercury.
It is hard to understand what you are trying to say because you never actually form a proposition or provide real evidence but it seems you are employing a Perfect Solution fallacy, that theories aren't theories until they prove everything. That is not a requirement.
@Weir,"The mathematical rules of Quantum Mechanics are not commutative." And that means what? I never suggested they were.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Think about the irrationality of pi. The circumference and diameter of a circle can not both be measured with complete accuracy using the same reference measures of length." How is that irrational? Who said they had to be? What axiom of mathematics/geometry states that they must find a finite solution to every problem? Here's a better one; divide 1 by 3 and you get .333... now multiply by 3 and you get .999... Where's the missing piece?
I am starting to see your problem here. You are taking theorems from one formal system and trying to invalidate them with rules and theorems from other formal systems. It is like the whole photon wave/particle duality BS. People say, science is so confused, it doesn't even know what light is. This is just another straw man fallacy. The particle/wave metaphors are just that, ways of looking at a subject in order to understand part of its nature. A photon is neither a wave nor a particle. It is a photon. That we can't find a single metaphor from our middle world to describe all its properties in an intuitive way represents a flaw in our cognition not a flaw in quantum mechanics.
Once again, it is not a requirement of science to be intuitive. The power of science is in its ability to describe and make predictions about phenomenon; even when they are way beyond our ability to comprehend. Our minds, as amazing as they are, can often be a limiting factor in our ability to understand the universe.
It seems you went shopping for a World View and found one you liked. Now, you are trying to change science so that it agrees with it. Another hallmark of pseudo-science buffs is that they deride science, logic and anything else that disagrees with them in one sentence, then quote science when it does. If science and logic are flawed then all your "scientific" evidence is equally flawed. You can't have it both ways.
P.S. Read Gödel, Escher, Bach, it might help you understand formal systems.
You are playing with words Robert. There is a fundamental difference between infinite numbers and irrational numbers.Irrational numbers can not be expressed by a fraction and they do not repeat a pattern. Your comments repeatedly betray your shallow understanding of science and mathematics. I just received a new reseach article about Bells Inequalities today from a physicist friend working at the cutting edge of quantum mechanics. The fact that Quantum Mechanics is non local also defies axioms of mathematics. I previously pointed out that the mathematics does not commute because you pointed out the commutative axiom and the continuous line and asked for examples that contradicted them. Then you ignore these examples offered in good faith and manipulate your language to defend you own jaundiced view. Sorry Robert I have run out of patience with your nonsense and insults. Goodbye.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Weir, You just don't get it. As I have said you are using one formal system to invalidate another. That doesn't work. Is a system of integers invalid because of fractions? "Quantum Mechanics is non local also defies axioms of mathematics." I guess that's why they use another formal system to study it? You clearly haven't heard of Noncommutative geometry. Here’s some more info for you to ignore because it disagrees with your world view; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncommutative_geometry
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt just amazes me that you, and so many others like you, seem to think you have it all figured out when you clearly haven't done your home work. When I run into a scientific theory I don't understand, I ask questions and, if it is important to me, study it, even model it. I don't write an ill informed post claiming that it is all a scam because I read it on someone else' s blog/website which contains no pier review, no scientific studies, and no real science of any kind. What do you think those guys with all the fancy book learnin' do to get their degrees, read a bunch of blogs and then regurgitate it all into a thesis? "Sorry Robert I have run out of patience with your nonsense and insults," you want to be taken seriously, try understanding what you're talking about.
as of today, 102 comments...??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthis on subjects without definition?
no fair counting Robert and Weir as entities in Time when they are just streams;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat ever they're up to as a function of math.
It is not fair to count Robert and Weir as entities in Time when they are just streams:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisno matter what function of math
Quote
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, as has been pointed out, God's existence is a belief, not a fact. Science itself MUST reject God's existence as a fact since there is no proof of God's existence. It doesn't mean people (even scientists) cannot believe in God. It's just the way the rules of scientific inquiry have to be in order for science to be effectively applied to the universe around us. Science and religion must be separate unless a way to test theories of the divine is developed.
Endquote
That is the quite nearly the best statement I have ever read on that particular question. Thanks.
Modern Science is a branch of relegion as it was developed at bible colleges and supported (ie $$$) by hard working honest religious people. You job is to put food on the table. Leave the theology to your mother the bible universities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is a branch of thoelogy as it came out of the bible universities. Funded by hard working honest religious people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCosmic rays at 10^20 eV are 10^8 times more powerfull than the LHC. Study these and get some facts. Like wise if the Proton spin does not add up, this is a nice crack in the standard theory, figure it out! Maybe there is some new physics without having to resort to strings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this