Royston

I've had to have a small break from reading 'three roads' as I'm just finishing my last assignment to my current course. But I'll definitely be up for discussing anything once I've finished, which will probably be next week sometime...and I hasten to add, I won't post any discussion points after I've been to the pub, otherwise I'll have some hazy, muddled memory of what I read (see response to J.C Macswell.) Martin, is it ok for anyone to ask questions about the content in what we've read...if, as with 'three roads' there's only a couple of people that have finished, or are ahead of others, it may broaden the discussion a little. Or is the 'book club' solely just for people that have read whichever book ?

You and me both Bascule, all this waiting around business...letting a bottle of wine breath in our household, especially for 48 hours, would be considered as some sort of sick joke.

J. C. Macswell, Martin, sorry a few friends came over last night, and I had rather an absurd amount of wine, so my posts didn't follow. So to clarify, one of the 'roads' Smolin discusses is string theory.

Sorry, I missed your post Martin, and you're dead right, there are several chapters devoted to string theory. Remember it's for the layperson, so of not much interest. I don't think there's anything to be gained by what has been proposed, but the first few chapters are very interesting.

No, the arguments put forward are a whittling down of questions to already solved equations and answers. That is the theme of the book. It concentrates on 'topos' and a mathematical means to 'limit' certain questions that could have far-reaching implications. So QM could hold many questions, but there's a way of limiting those questions. if you stick to underlying principles of cosmology. It relies on already established theories in physics, and sits on those principles, and comes to a few conclusions. But I found the book wandered off, trying to explain QM and Relativity to the layperson, which didn't follow from the theme it promised...but I'm only half way through. I'm more interested in the maths the book brought up, from the first few chapters.

Thanks, but I know my tipple...and I go for certain and specific wines, despite expense and region, I've tried varying wines in South America, France, Australia and African wines, as well as Spanish and Italian. I tend to go for taste rather than bouquet (what a great word) that's probably why I couldn't see the benefit of letting wine breath.

Right, thanks DaveC426913. I wasn't aware of the effect of tannins, and exposure to air...and I guess I was judging the breathing process purely on the taste, but not the aroma. But that makes sense, and was exactly the response I was looking for, so cheers

My ex used to swear on letting red wine 'breath' before drinking, even if it was a cheap bottle. To be honest, the difference in taste is marginal to nil (and I couldn't really tell if it tasted better or not), also alcohol bonds with oxygen to form acetic acid (vinegar) so what exactly is the purpose in letting wine breath, and is there a 'connoisseur's' limit to the amount of time you let wine breath for ? I'm just not convinced that it adds to the pleasure of drinking red wine. If anyone knows better, then I'd be interested, as to why it should improve the taste, and what their preferred 'breathing limit' is with their favourite wine. I like dry Chilean, and fruity Californian red wines, if that helps.

Deleted...was being too harsh.

As odd as this may sound, my eldest snail, Sonic seems to sulk if I don't handle it. It seems rather nonplussed by the younger snails activity, but really perks up if I pick it up and let it suck the natural salts from my nose...I have to scrub my face thoroughly after this (risk of salmonella.) Unfortunately poor Sonic, who was never interested in mating in the 5 years I've owned it, was subjected to a gang bang the other day...4 snails tried to mate with it, and had the residue of the little ecstacy darts they fire from the side of their head, all over it...for four days it just sat there with it's antenna retracted, as though it was doped up, it's far too old for that kind of activity.

In all honesty, I doubt I'd waste my time reading it...I'm just interested in how such an argument is approached, what method he uses et.c (and taking it with a vat of salt.) I've said many a time on here, that science and God are not to be mixed, but if there is some new way of looking at this idea, that hasn't been proposed before...then I can't see the harm in atleast considering it, but that's as far as it goes. By the way, I'm nearly half way through 3 roads to Quantum Gravity...I couldn't put it down last night, it rocks quite frankly, IMO.

Well I'm glad there is a 'serious' theistic approach being published, I personally think it's needed...I like to keep an open mind on such things, so I would be interested in reading this, he certainly has the credentials. Here's a quote from Harvard University Press... http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/GINGOD.html However, as to why the books popular...I'd be more inclined to say it fits with a popular view, especially with a title 'God's Universe.' I'm guessing the majority of sales are in America ? I can't really judge until I've read it, if there is a compelling argument, and all the science is there, perhaps it's worth a read to consider Gingerich's argument, and also it would probably attract a readership that wouldn't normally be interested in cosmology. Slightly dodgy ground...maybe, guess there's only one way to find out.

This is pretty much what I gathered from just reading the introduction, and he comes across very much an optimist with bags of humility, which I like. To wet you're appetite (or anyone else interested) here's a quote from the introduction that explains what Smolin means by a 'third road' and I'll give a list of chapters so you get a good idea of the content... Part I Points of departure : 1. There is nothing outside the universe 2. In the future we shall know more 3. Many observers, not many worlds 4. The universe is made of processes, not things Part II What we have learned : 5. Black holes and hidden regions 6. Acceleration and heat 7. Black holes are hot 8. Area and information 9. How to count space 10. Knots. links and kinks 11. The sound of space is a string Part III The present frontiers 12. The holographic prinicple 13. How to weave a string 14. What chooses the laws of nature ? Chapters 4 to 9 and chapter 12 appear from first observations as personal preferences, but I'll let you know when I've finished, and I'll see if I can persuade you with any of the ideas, musings or anecdotes...whilst not giving too much away.

Well, as I said in another thread I've ordered 'The Trouble with Physics' and I'm going to try and pick it up next week, if I get time. For the time being I bought 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity', not sure if anybody has read or has any views on this (I'm going to read it regardless) and 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order' by David Bohm, which is clearly science/philosophy, and really for future reading, when I've finished my second year with the OU.

Absolutely, my only concern was that 'evidence' covered all discussion, which obviously just isn't applicable to certain topics. I think there should be room for personal opinion, providing it's within the forum policy (whatever that would be) so I guess it shouldn't be fallicous, dogmatic, preachy et.c Just a thought, but if there is going to be a philosophy forum on SFN, maybe specific sub-forums, to stop people swaying into topics of God et.c...the usual thing, when people start mentioning 'cause' et.c So 'off the top of my head' ...Logicism and Mathematical Philosophy, Epistemology, and perhaps Empiricism, and Reductionism. This will keep the discussion within these realms, and maybe prompt people to dust off their philosophy books and discuss proper philosophy. Admittedly, my knowledge in the subjects is pretty poor...just read bits and pieces, but it could prompt more informed debate, rather than some of the tired arguments that kept on cropping up in the original P&R forums. For the theology forum / memetank...perhaps Meta-Ethics, Moral Relativism and Objectivism, and a discussion forum on your favourite philosophers e.g Hume, Kant, Descartes...discussion around ideas and quotes et.c As well as 'of course' religious / theology discussion, and maybe religion in politics et.c Just an idea anyway.

Heh, thanks Swansont...old news then, my mistake.

Field equations are beyond my scope for now, I'm doing some background reading before I tackle the maths...the next couple of years of courses covers this, I'm happy I understand the definitions and implications at my level, it's all that's needed for the time being.

Wasn't sure whether to stick this in politics or not, but seems better here. I'm not aware of 'E-voting' machines in the UK, as far as I know we have poll stations, or postal voting...which obviously could be tampered with, but probably not to the extent as hacking into E-votes, please see the article below... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14825465/ I'm not sure if there's much to discuss here or not, but found it quite interesting, and a little worrying.

I'm asking my local Borders bookshop to order a copy tomorrow, unless of course they already have it...I'm thoroughly looking forward to reading it, especially as I have a break from study in October, which limits my time for leisurely reading. I'm also interested in discussing the content in the 'book club' that Martin was talking about, hopefully I won't be too late to join the discussion.

Light has no 'rest' mass, which isn't the same as zero mass. This is one of the things I queried in my course a couple of months ago.

That's what I was getting at, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. So philosophical arguments in the realms of science on SFN...and all branches of philosophy and religious debate on the other forum...perhaps. I know, but obviously you ascribe a faculty in which to philosophize...e.g philosophy of mathematics, or arguments specific to philosophy alone e.g positivism.

I agree, perhaps that should be in the forum policy...'things you should know' et.c However 'evidence' shouldn't really be a prefix of debate in a theology forum...rationality, absolutely...logic, in some respects yes. It depends what the discussion is, and perhaps 'philosophy of logic' could be a good sub forum...perhaps. Is this purely a 'theology' forum, because isn't a philosophy forum being implemented into SFN bar any religious undertones ? Sorry if this was already brought up on this thread, I just scanned through.

If animals didn't struggle, day in day out, to survive, I'd agree with you...but they do. Even predatory animals are constantly fighting to find food, raise their young et.c There are plenty of benefits for an animal that has caring owners who are aware of it's needs, and give it attention and the affection it deserves. Obviously it depends on the animal, there are certain animals I think it's plain wrong to keep as pets...animals that have not been bred for domestication, and animals that require a lot of freedom e.g birds. Sounds kinky. They maybe unwilling prisoners in certain circumstances, but again it depends on the animal...I really don't think a few fish in a pond, would care either way. I think you're being a little over dramatic, I think the animals that make popular pets, have been bred specifically for being domesticated...so that is the environment that will suit them. Again it depends which animal...I think freedom of space for certain animals is essential, i.e I don't agree with caged animals at zoo's, especially big cats et.c However domestic cats, come and go as they please, and always know there is food waiting for them...I really can't see the problem with certain animals.

Going by what Sisyphus said, rats underwent the change as well, do you have any more info on this, that would be interesting if there is a direct link to the two traits...I'm can't see how though. The animals becoming smarter (alone) obviously makes perfect sense. With the OP, it depends on the situation...if I willingly chose to be a pet of some higher intelligence, knowing I could pretty much do as I please, and come in at dinner time to get fed, then sit on the aliens lap while I snoozed...(like a cat obviously) doesn't sound all that bad IMO.

Well, the reason I was interested, is that it isn't a loss of inhibitions which is obviously the effect of alcohol, but a 'feel good' sensation. I'm really not swayed by such a thing...I get my high from reading, and learning (as nerdy as that sounds.) Just thought it was an actual side effect of a hangover. I have thought about what YT said, but I don't really act on such things...10 years ago it would of been a different matter.