gwb

the only sensible thing for me to do at this time would be to apologize for I am obviously running contrary to the spirit of the forum, my apologies

power has multiple definitions. in physics, it is about a force that can be exerted upon something, but in politics, or political science and psychology, power can refer to a more abstract phenomenon, the ability or capacity to influence other people, their thoughts or their actions. also, there is the phrase that knowledge is power. some chimpanzees know how to extract termites from a mound, so they have the power to act upon their environment in a way no other species of monkeys can. some orcas know how to hunt whales and some orcas know how to pluck seals off a beach. they have the power to act in very specific ways. because they possess specific knowledge, they become a deliberate force. science can study all these variations, giving us the knowledge that we can use to plot a deliberate course of action.

then I might suggest a society that values people, a society that also values the learning process, which includes the process of learning from our mistakes and failings, a society that values curiosity and a society that reminds us we do not know everything and we probably never will, I might also suggest a society that values respect, not receiving respect as much as giving respect, a society that advocates kindness because kindness makes both the giver and the recipient a little happier

okay, how do I remove it

I always had the impression that one of the implicit attributes of a utopian society is that it is a completed project, a perfection solution requires no changes, no improvements, because it allegedly has no flaws or problems. and I have a personal history of pursuing perfection to no avail so to me it seems futile though if I concentrate more on improving a few problems, I have a chance of creating a better life for myself. if I was to try to imagine a utopian self or a utopian society, it would not have growth because most growth comes from tackling our problems. and a perfect self or a perfect society could not have problems otherwise it is not perfect and possibly not very utopian

Science is the power to manage power intelligently, the power to master power for science produces the deep intimate knowledge needed to master something. The power of science is that it allows us to investigate reality, including power in all its forms and variations. It enables us to investigate everything from mechanical power to institutional power and provide us with a detailed understanding of how, when, where, why and what. The physical sciences like physics and chemistry are providing us with the knowledge we need to harness natural powers so we can turn that energy to our advantage. Scientists are studying the fundamental interactions: the nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational forces, providing us with the knowledge we need to harness those forces for our own ends. They are also experimenting with wind, water, sunshine and geothermal energy, allowing us to convert those forces into electrical power that we can use to power the myriad of instruments we use daily. Science is also researching fossil fuels, partly to find more efficient ways to use these fuels and partly to find ways to clean up the deleterious effects of fossil fuels. Thus, science is giving us the knowledge we need to harness the natural forces and direct that energy toward our own ends. Science is also helping us master the power of plants and animals (assuming we don’t eradicate them). Scientists are researching the nutritional value of plants and animals as well as investigating the comparable values of natural foods versus manufactured foods versus genetically engineered foods. They are also studying the various methods and techniques people use to improve yields without sacrificing the nutritional value; and they are busy experimenting with producing plants that are hardy, disease resistant and drought tolerant, which will only help us gain greater mastery of our food supply, possibly the most fundamental power supply. Thus, science is giving us the potential power to eliminate hunger throughout the world, giving us the cornerstone to create a better for all humankind. Science is also helping us master the healing power hidden inside plants and animals. Here too, scientists are researching the compounds in plants and animals (notably their venoms), searching for the potential medicinal benefits in the ongoing battle against disease. They are also conducting stem cell research to find ways to channel the human bodies intrinsic mechanisms into medical therapies that could conquer diseases and disorders. Although most ancestral cultures discovered some of the medicinal secrets hidden in the local flora and fauna, their knowledge was not the deep microscopic knowledge of cells and molecules that scientists use to design treatments for specific diseases. Thus, science is helping us cultivate and maintain the power of a healthy body. Not only can science help us master the natural forces but it could also help us master the powers that emerge from human societies. For instance, scientists could study the nature and application of authority, whether political, social or economic. While those with authority may believe they already are the supreme masters of power (if only surly authors would abide by their wishes), scientists could provide insight into the uses and abuses of authority. Scientists could identify the different magnitudes of mortal power: hard, soft and moderate; or they might identify different types of authority: authoritarian, permissive and authoritative. They could also identify their typical characteristics, behaviours and consequences, and armed with this knowledge we could gain a deeper and truer understanding of authority, its forms, functions and effectiveness. In other words, science could give us the empirical knowledge we need to manage authority wisely, although this is only on the grandiose assumption we have the courage to give scientists the freedom to investigate without an agenda. Science can also help us understand economic power, though we must admit scientists have already been doing so for a century through the disciplines of economics and business management. They are busy studying different management styles and strategies, providing astute business people with insight into the best ways to organize and manage their enterprise. Science is also studying the challenges of hiring the best people, planning and implementing goals, managing customers and resolving conflicts. These issues are all invaluable knowledge for any business wishing to succeed without learning incredibly costly lessons. Scientists are also exploring the various ways in which businesses are unwittingly undermining their own ambitions, which is priceless knowledge considering one oversight can destroy a space shuttle. The bottom line is that science is providing astute businesses with the knowledge they need to create the best businesses humanly possible, businesses where people love working and spending their hard earned money. Science is giving business the knowledge it need to succeed in a highly competitive global environment. Science is also helping us with the problem of social power, the monumental challenge of crafting social behaviour to maximize the power to our relationships. We are after all social beings who interact with each other twenty-four-seven, three sixty five and a quarter. We eat together, we work together, we sleep together, we play together, we sing and dance together, we love and hate together, and science is studying these experiences. If we pay attention to their conclusions, we can use the knowledge to improve our relationships and enhance our social power. And if we really pay attention, we will discover that science is finding that the quality of our relationships has a profound influence on our life satisfaction. In other words, science can help us improve our social lives which influences the quality of our lives which then influences our satisfaction with life. The long and short is that science can turn its microscope on virtually any kind of power and by studying it in the lab, science can provide us with microscopic knowledge of that power. Equipped with this deep intimate knowledge, we can then manage power wisely, we can mange it intelligently with deliberate foreknowledge. We can employ mechanical power to do the hard, physical labour faster and easier than the human body ever could; and we can probably learn to use intangible powers like political, economic and social power with deliberate foreknowledge instead of relying on fickle good fortune. Thus, science is the power to manage power intelligently, knowing exactly what we wish to achieve and precisely how we plan to achieve it. hope you enjoyed it. your feedback is greatly appreciated as it will most likely help me either improve the essay or improve my perspective on something. thank you, gwb

amazing what one learns from the history or words, thanks for the information possibly neither, I am not really interested in a utopian dream because I think it is essentially impossible unless you have an incredibly simple community on a tropical island with plenty of food, no diseases and no predators. however, I do think that we can make this world a better place for humanity and other species, but that would require knowledge which we could gain from science. so, I am disagreeing if we are talking about a perfect society like heaven but I am agreeing if we are talking about simply trying to make this world a better place for everybody including the poorest people.

the basic idea of a utopian society is a 'perfect' society, whereas working toward a better world is perhaps in pursuit of a 'perfect' world but it is more concerned with fixing the problems relating to the present situation. and I think that we should turn our attention to science, primarily the humanities which also includes economics, business management, political science and ever religious studies. I wonder what political scientists would discover if they were free to experiment with different political systems. I also wonder what religious scientists would discover if they were free to experiment with the issue of human spirituality. I could be wrong about this, but I am not aware of either group experimenting with questions relating to their fields. returning to the question of utopia, if we are to create a better world, the first big challenge is defining a utopian dream everybody can accept. however we describe a better world, we would be wise to seek advice from multiple sources. the distribution of resources is one factor but so is the distribution of power, the application of justice, the development of children, the state of families, the appreciation of art and entertainment, etcetera, etcetera. another concern is that whenever we try to create a better world, or we try to improve something in one area, we typically have unexpected consequences in another area. a quick example is the use of fertilizers and pesticides, they worked wonders for helping farmers improved and protect their crops but they had undesirable consequences on the environment. I also dislike the notion of a utopian society because of the connotations of perfection. simple things can be perfect but complex things are incredibly difficult to be perfect. for example, a line can be perfect or near absolute perfection, but a metropolis of ten million humans will never be perfect though we can work toward making it a better city by tackling problems as they arise.

it seems to me that a better question would be how do we go about creating a better world for everybody. and the answer to that question is to ask science: anthropology, sociology and psychology. see what they have to say about the problem of creating a better world. I should think too that the first question they should examine is what constitutes a better world?

My thoughts on the subject is that time is a consequence of the relationship between objects. For instance, a day is a result of the relationship between the earth's surface, its axis and the sun. A year is an expression of the earth's orbit around the sun. Similarly, an old analog clock, the seconds, minutes and hours are the result of the relationship between the various gears. And a quartz watch, time arises from the relationship between an electrical circuit passing through a crystal. Time arises from the relationship between two or more objects. And it cannot be any two objects, because it needs to be a durable and predictable or very stable relationship.

then space came in to be with the Big Bang, and all matter and energy existed within the singularity as I understand it, yet, what existed beyond the singularity from which the universe came to be? the problem is that the more I think about and the more I puzzle over it, the more the Big Bang looks like a black hole in reverse. instead of all matter and energy being drawn into the singularity, it is expanding out from the singularity. yes, no, nobody knows, everybody knows but me?

are we talking about space as volume (which could be independent of the universe) or are we talking about space as the medium in which the universe exists and evolves?

swansont I think I am talking about physics. I certainly hope that I am talking about physics, though basic physics. I am not a physicist which I assume is obvious and I am not a scientist. So I am essentially a average pedestrian out on the street with an interest in understanding how things work. I do appreciate the million and one things that science has done to improve the human experience and if I have a better understanding of science and cosmology, I might be able to hold my own against non science views and proponents. And then maybe one more person might appreciate the importance of science even if we struggle to understand some of the basic tenets. this is my problem, because it seems to me that a Big Bang needs space, that even a singularity of incomprehensible density still requires space to precede. I can see where the gravitational field of a singularity could distort space, but space would still exist around the singularity. zero though is a concept and a descriptor is it not? not a thing that actually exists on its own.

Please allow me to toss out a simple assertion as I endeavour to make sense of life, reality and the universe. My first assertion is simply that space is the ultimate antecedent simply because it can exist without anything in it but nothing can exist without space. Space can exist without neutrons, photons, protons, atoms and molecules, though these particles cannot exist without space. Space can exist without stars, planets, galaxies and black holes, though these things cannot exist without space. Space can exist without black energy, black matter, strings, deities or anything else we humans can imagine, though none of these things can exist without space. Space can also exist without the fundamental interactions - the nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational interactions, though these interactions cannot exist without space. Space can also exist without a Big Bang, though a Big Bang cannot happen without space. Thus, space is the original antecedent, the ultimate antecedent, for it can exist with absolutely nothing in it, though nothing can exist without space. It is the stage upon which everything else exists and operates. So, am I out to lunch?

I cannot really say why other people do not trust truth, but I can offer my perspective on this. Journalism is about truth, disseminating truth to the public. However, journalism distorts truth. Consider the issue of terrorist attacks. True, we experience terrorist attacks, yet I suspect we are more likely to get killed in a random car accident than a terrorist attack. New York City had about 150 pedestrian fatalities 2013, as per the NY Daily News. This is more than the average number of deaths from terrorist attacks, excluding 9/11. We never hear about the likelihood of a terror attack and we do not hear about the probability of being killed by a terror attack. But if you pay attention to the news, you could be forgiven for thinking the probability is higher than it really is. This is why I am cynical of journalistic truth. Yes, I realize I am sourcing a newspaper to say I distrust journalism, primarily because I am too lazy to search deeper into the search engine results.

My understanding is that it all originates from the same event, the expansion. In other words, all space, matter and energy, very suddenly, very rapidly began moving outward from this singular event. My thing is that I do not understand how the matter can be moving outward at a slower speed while electromagnetic energy can be moving faster. If this is the case, then the faster moving energy should be beyond the slower moving material. Okay, all velocities are relative, yet whether the earth is moving 3000km/s or 30,000km/s, our speed is still slower than the speed of light and all evidence of the Big Bang is moving considerably faster. And if we originate from the same source, at the same time, i.e. the same event, it does not compute. my confusion seems to grow all light, matter and space where compressed in what can only be a smaller sphere, a smaller universe that began expanding till stars and galaxies could develop. and these galaxies are moving away from one another. the space between them is expanding or increasing, which explains the red shift of light. yet, that light still comes from the galaxies and stars themselves, and physicists and astronomers use the Hubble law to calculate distances back in time, several billion years. however, the microwave radiation is still moving at light speed and earth is moving slower. so, if both have their origins in the same event, how can we be intercepting the microwave radiation that should be way beyond our reach. that does not make sense to me.

Dear science forum I have a problem with the Big Bang because of a mathematical discrepancy that makes no sense to me. As far as I can figure out, evidence proving the Big Bang is coming from electromagnetic radiation (i.e., light, ultraviolet light, infrared light, gamma rays, x-rays, etcetera) which I understand is travelling at the speed of light, approximately 300,000 km per second. Yet, we are standing on earth which is apparently hurling through space 300-400 km/s - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/ - which is less than 1% the speed of light. My problem is that I do not understand how we can be intercepting data that is moving at the speed of light while standing on evidence that is moving less than 1% of that speed and conclude the high velocity evidence proves the existence of the low velocity evidence upon which we are standing. This is a simple model to illustrate my confusion: BB - - - - > LV - - - - > - - - - > - - - - > - - - - > - - - - > - - - - > HV BB - the Big Bang LV - low velocity evidence, i.e., matter HV - high velocity evidence, i.e., electromagnetic radiation According to the present conclusion, planet earth is made from the matter (low velocity evidence) that was expelled from the Big Bang. Yet, as far as I can figure out, we are intercepting high velocity evidence that should be travelling away from the low velocity evidence, including the earth if the earth was made from the ejected material. If our planet was formed from the physical debris ejected out from the Big Bang and it is travelling at a fraction of the speed of light, then we should not be able to intercept any high velocity evidence of the Big Bang that is travelling at light speed. It seems to me, this is a basic rule governing all explosions. For instance, when a star explodes and we intercept the high velocity evidence (i.e., light waves, gamma waves etcetera), we do not argue that we are made of the atoms being ejected from that event. We may argue we are made of the atoms created inside similar events, but not that particular event. From my grade six calculations, we should be situated in front of the high velocity evidence like this: BB - - - - > LV - - - - > - - - - > - - - - > - - - - > - - - - > - - - - > HV - O (earth) and not like this: BB - - - - > LV - O - - - > - - - - > - - - - > - - - - > - - - - > - - - - > HV where O represents planet earth So, am I missing something? Is there some force that is causing the high velocity evidence to circle back and hit earth? Is the high velocity evidence bouncing off the edge of the universe and then crossing paths with the earth? Or did somebody forget a small calculation when they concluded the entire universe started with a single Big Bang? Because, if somebody missed a calculation, then we are living in a very interesting universe because we still have evidence of a Big Bang, though we may not be able to conclude the entire universe began with a single Big Bang. However, we could still surmise this planet has its origins in a Big Bang, just not necessarily the event we are witnessing. And that means we have a very interesting universe indeed. Thank you, gwb

https://theconversation.com/the-myth-of-the-echo-chamber-92544 this article on the conversation contends that people are getting their information from multiple sources. apparently, the research is part of Quello Search Project. it seems people are developing media habits that helping them check their information so they are not mindlessly recycling bad information. Most people have media habits that help them avoid echo chambers - last paragraph in the article

that is an interesting observation; it is unfortunate the ideal gets corrupted or degraded with use

My personal view is that religion needs to evolve. I doubt we will ever get rid of religion, and we should acknowledge that religion has done some good things and religious people still do good things. Also, people keep creating new religions. Even atheists are creating their own churches or religious/spiritual communities because they want to keep the desirable aspects of religion and discard the undesirable aspects. However, religion needs a major philosophical or theological overhaul because it is horribly out of touch with the modern world. My primary concerns with religion is that it does not know what a human being is. They have a very cynical and simplistic view of the human experience, and that is not helping anybody. In other words, theologians should probably spend ten or twenty years studying human psychology to get a modern appreciation for humankind. Another concern I have is that religion has no comprehension of human rights. Most religions have the self serving idea that people should sell their souls to one religion and only one religion. Yet, human rights says people have the right to choose what they are willing to believe and what they are not willing to believe. Therefore, a good modern religion should ask people what they are willing to believe and what they are not willing to believe. Another issue is that religion is undemocratic. People should have the liberty to decide who they are willing to follow and who they are not willing to follow. True, people could make a stupid choice, but they do this as a group and that has one distinct advantage, namely everybody shares the blame. Therefore, they can correct their folly on the next vote. This in unlike the traditional hierarchal design where the authoritarian at the top never makes mistakes, so they don't need to fix their follies. And if there are any follies to fix, it was probably somebody else's fault and that person should be punished, severely punished for making the supreme leader look human. and that is my two and a half cents