Guest Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Ageism? Sorry Gen I don't understand what you mean by "first cause" Did you mean? Atheism is not pretty and the creation of the universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gen131 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 bias based on age is ageism. first cause is basically based on the principle of cause and effect. the first cause is the cause that has no cause for its existence. its not a religious argument at all. it is basic to philosophy. the highest science imo. there is science and then there is reason. true science is reasonable and reproducible. medical science is experiments and art. not much true science in medicine. gen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martian Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 bias based on age is ageism.first cause is basically based on the principle of cause and effect. the first cause is the cause that has no cause for its existence. its not a religious argument at all. it is basic to philosophy. the highest science imo. there is science and then there is reason. true science is reasonable and reproducible. medical science is experiments and art. not much true science in medicine. gen Hi All. WWOOWWWW hold on a bit gen, Philosophy certainly ain't the highest "science", it isn't a science as such, philosophy, correct me if I'm wrong, is mostly down to thought, and thinking about things. and not experimentation? Science and reason are not mutually exclusive, (usually quite the contrary). True science must be reproducable, but not nescasarily reasonable, an experimental outcome could be totaly unexpected, IE unreasonable before the experiment was executed, (one of the reasons philosophy, and thinking about the experiment is not in my opinion a science). And as for, "not much true science in medicine", i'm not even gonna go there. Ta Ta. Martian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boojum Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 (edited) Science is philosophy if taken far enough into the realms of the theoretical. True, the basis of science is experimentation, but science is not just experimental science, there is also theoretical science (mostly theoretical physics), and if you delve deeply enough into the realm of theoretical physics, to that place where the numbers run out and mathematics is no longer sufficient you enter a realm that is based on pure thought - in essence, philosophy. It's no accident that quantum physics bears some striking resemblances to certain philosophical concepts, most notably certain tenets of Taoism. So unless one wants to dismiss all theoretical (ie non-experimental) scientific disciplines as not science then one must accept that on a certain level there is a definite link between science and philosophy. Don't forget, before it was given the name science the whole area (including experimental science) was called 'natural philosophy'. Edited January 14, 2009 by Boojum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hit_em_up Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 There is more chance that we have been planted here then everything evolving from the big bang Every theory on how the earth began is biillions/1 I got into this conversation with an old school stoner the other night and it sent our heads west we are all open to our opinions on this matter and its scary to think one of them might be true... Anyway im keepin mine open taaaaaake me to your dealer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boojum Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I'd say that the correct theory about how existence came into, well, existence is statistically 1:1, the rest are 0:1, cos they're all pretty unlikely really, to the extent that statistics is irrelevant, a billion to one chance isn't much different from a billion-and-one to one chance. BUT I'd opine (so no need for anyone to get hot under the collar, I'm not stating a fact merely my opinion) that it happening as the result of some natural and one day, if humanity survives that long, explainable and measurable phenomenon that comes under the broad heading of physics is, on a scale of astronomical statistical unlikeliness, less of a statistical improbability than the existence of an omnipotent being who conjured it all up (an omnipotent being who's creation itself we're not supposed to ask about cos he's, like, omnipotent and everything...) and who, if humanity survives that long, still won't be an explainable or measurable phenomenon and which will still come under the broad heading of belief. But that's just me, mechanics (even quantum mechanics at a level that is currently vastly beyond human comprehension) is just more likely to me than miracles. Couple that with the impression at least that if there is a God it is a cruel and uncaring one that created, if not the universe, then at least this Godforsaken rock out of malicious intent and I seriously hope it was just colossally unlikely physics that was responsible, because the alternative seems much, much worse to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hit_em_up Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 People keep talking about space and planets and bangs....... where did it all come from though? did a planet just form from thin air, sounds likely that all these planets appereard from a bang... i mean what are the chances an eclipse would happen coming from a big bang, i mean think about the suns distance from the moon but it managers to block the whole sunlight.... Its crazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 There is more chance that we have been planted here then everything evolving from the big bang Every theory on how the earth began is biillions/1 Yeah right, did you work out the chances on your own or did your mate help you? I agree with Booj, but only because its true . Sorry gen, I don't really understand what your trying to say about ageism and your talking balls about science sorry.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughie Green Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 "I seriously hope it was just colossally unlikely physics that was responsible" Aye, Adamsian improbability, probably Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gen131 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 parka, the ageism statement was in reference to a previous post and not directed at you. ageism was most like a sidebar comment. kids are often treated with age bias. old people. were a joke to many youngsters. maybe youngster is an ageism slur. language is so imprecise. gen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Sorry gen my bag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gen131 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 this is where i get off. the bus jethro. get off the bus. gen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martian Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Science is philosophy if taken far enough into the realms of the theoretical. True, the basis of science is experimentation, but science is not just experimental science, there is also theoretical science (mostly theoretical physics), and if you delve deeply enough into the realm of theoretical physics, to that place where the numbers run out and mathematics is no longer sufficient you enter a realm that is based on pure thought - in essence, philosophy. It's no accident that quantum physics bears some striking resemblances to certain philosophical concepts, most notably certain tenets of Taoism. So unless one wants to dismiss all theoretical (ie non-experimental) scientific disciplines as not science then one must accept that on a certain level there is a definite link between science and philosophy. Don't forget, before it was given the name science the whole area (including experimental science) was called 'natural philosophy'. Hi All. Yes absolutely Boojum, Wich is why I left in the qualifier, "as such", infact science actually started with philosophy with the early Greeks if i'm not mistaken. BTW, If your into all that fasinating Physics, and Quantum mechanics, I can heartily recomend, The Whole Shebang, By timothy Ferris, (in fact Boojum I very nearly recomended this book to you yesterday, in your Book Recomend thread). A few years old now, but still a splendid book, really puts one in perspective, as a mere mote of cack, sitting on a particular rock, with a lot of other motes of cack, wondering it there are any other sentient motes of cack somewhere else on another rock, in a unirverse so vast, it takes one a week thinking about it before one even gets to appreciate the size, (none of us can really imigine the size, but it takes time thinking about it before one even aproaches a fraction of the size). Ta Ta. Martian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archangel Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 This will help you imagine the size, posted again cause no one really took notice of my post few pages back... name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>"> name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">and the relative size of planets to stars to supergiants, the red super giant being brainpoppingly big Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martian Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Hi All. I'd say that the correct theory about how existence came into, well, existence is statistically 1:1, the rest are 0:1, cos they're all pretty unlikely really, to the extent that statistics is irrelevant, a billion to one chance isn't much different from a billion-and-one to one chance. Where do you get your figures from??? and which theories do you mean?? 1:1, or evens means that the likelyhood of our universe coming into being, (I,m assuming your talking about) was 50 50, and 0:1 means that it has statistically no chance at all of ever coming into being, I was under the impression that it was unknown at this time, (and possibly for all time), because anything that pre dates the big bang cannot be known about, merely speculated on. (another example of your Philosophy in science EH??) and certainly cannot be given any figures. BUT I'd opine (so no need for anyone to get hot under the collar, I'm not stating a fact merely my opinion) that it happening as the result of some natural and one day, if humanity survives that long, explainable and measurable phenomenon that comes under the broad heading of physics is, on a scale of astronomical statistical unlikeliness, less of a statistical improbability than the existence of an omnipotent being who conjured it all up (an omnipotent being who's creation itself we're not supposed to ask about cos he's, like, omnipotent and everything...) and who, if humanity survives that long, still won't be an explainable or measurable phenomenon and which will still come under the broad heading of belief. Yes absolutely, as I believe Physics, and Maths are the universal language, (well accually mainly Maths, as physics while still universal, is really OUR language for describing it all, whereas maths holds true at the other side of the universe), although as for statistics, I'd hazard it statistically way more probable, as I believe the probability of an omnipotent entity as being literaly 0. But that's just me, mechanics (even quantum mechanics at a level that is currently vastly beyond human comprehension) is just more likely to me than miracles. Couple that with the impression at least that if there is a God it is a cruel and uncaring one that created, if not the universe, then at least this Godforsaken rock out of malicious intent and I seriously hope it was just colossally unlikely physics that was responsible, because the alternative seems much, much worse to me. No Boojum, its not just you, I personally find it hard to believe, that it this day and age, and what is presently know, that any creedence can be given to such fantasy stories. It is all so obviously a human construct, (we created a God, or actually Gods, and not the other way round), from a time when we didn't have real answers to the Big questions, that "inteligent" beings must ask. Toodle Pip. Martian. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now