Phi for All

Religion and philosophy are concerned with "why", science seeks the "how". You're applying a scientifically rational concept like supportive evidence to a perspective that isn't based on rational thought. Faith in a god isn't based on evidence at all. Arguing that god(s) can't exist because you can't think of a reason why is fallacious, an Argument from Incredulity. There is no scientifically valid supportive evidence for god(s), but there's also no scientifically valid supportive evidence for "why" anything works the way it does. Science seeks the how, the understanding of the mechanisms. Why? What's it all for? No way to know for sure.

Exactly. If the planet has enough gravity to make it habitable, it's better to keep the resources there and manage them, rather than trying to take them anywhere else. Pilfering resources from another planet is like the thief who climbs two big mountains to steal a bag of food and bring it home. He has to work so hard to get the food that he eats most of what he carries away, so it isn't worth the trip.

You're also saying: I don't think it's intellectually honest to base your conclusion on the fact that you can't think of a reason why a god might exist. It's not that much different from assuming one does exist just because you can think of a reason, and isn't that what you're suggesting here, that if there was a good reason for a god to exist, it would?

What makes you think anything would be running in a dead body? And although I'm certain your reference to a clock is conceptual, can you explain what you mean by it?

I think a space-based solar array is in our future, but right now we've got quite a few more economical options. And one major problem: We'd need to transfer the power gathered back to Earth without actually going back to Earth. And the geopolitical climate just isn't going to allow any single country to build something in space that could potentially send that kind of energy anywhere their leaders wished. The potential for abuse will probably keep this on the drawing boards for some time to come. Unofficially, don't do this anymore. It's basically using one thread to advertise another, and that's not cool. Thanks for understanding.

A truly specious conservative argument, when you really look at it. It seems driven by a shallow, propagandized perception of the intelligence of everyone else.

I think this is like your H-mining-of-the-sun idea. Remember that it takes a hideous amount of fuel to escape Earth's gravity. Each trip you plan off-planet would have to bring back a lot more resources than you're expending to get them. And if we had a really efficient way to get off-planet, it's unlikely we'd be starving for resources. We need to continue to educate everyone on the planet about smart, sustainable use of resources, but I think this is just a question of energy distribution. Like the H-mining, if we had the technology to regularly visit other planets, we'd most likely have the resources problem handled as well. And again, why pilfer when you can manage?

If you're establishing a new home for a terran population, I don't see what the problem would be with using your new home's resources wisely. If we learn from history and incorporate a more efficient approach, I think the benefits outweigh the costs. As long as you're not stripping a new planet and trying to send the raw resources back to Earth. That would be foolish.

I'm partial to plans that take advantage of this efficiency. Use the passive process more efficiently, maybe figure out how to put a massive PV array in orbit that can send us power or at least power our initial efforts to explore our system in greater detail.

I can understand this perspective, which tells me we need to identify the aspect of this concept we want to talk about, and use that as our working definition. Can forgiveness be conditional? Can I forgive someone who commits severe offense and never trust them again/go our separate ways, or do I have to go back to the way things were before the offense if I "forgive" someone? You'll be delighted to know that all of them have roots in folklore that predates those writings. It's true, I can support that anecdotally. A balance needs to be found though. If you're too quick to forgive, you may be setting yourself up for further abuse. And what does it do for your self-esteem to think that you may be too quickly trusting someone who betrayed you recently? I'm a secret karma-junky. I just think my life goes smoother when I think of us all working together interconnectedly, and any little thing I can do to help out a fellow human will come back to me soon (not for any cosmic reason; I'll simply be focusing on good things to happen back). But you need to deal with feelings of betrayal and mistrust too, and resolve these issues meaningfully or they'll probably happen again a lot.

I think this is a case where, if we had the technology to maintain an active energy-gathering process with the sun, why rob it to run a bunch of little furnaces? Why not just use the big furnace better? We will hopefully be more sophisticated by that time. Instead of dashing away with siphoned plunder, I'd rather be the power plant managers.

On the other hand, if you're actively building more infrastructure in space, getting your resources off-planet becomes the more economically feasible approach. For those purposes, there are plenty of asteroids to mine. I'm not sure when it would make sense to use planets for resources, unless you were colonizing that planet.

I don't know about the big stuff, betrayal, breaking a vow, outright lies that cause harm. I'm not sure how quickly things like that can be forgiven, or if they should be at all without a lot of thought. If a close friend betrays me, I'm not sure forgiving him would increase my wellbeing. I might feel worse for being such a pushover. But for smaller things, I think we take them too seriously. The guy who cut you off in traffic didn't cut YOU off, he cut your car off, nothing personal about it. That's the kind of stuff that accumulates on a daily basis and if you don't forgive it quickly, it can affect you without your realizing it.

It depends on what you eat. I have a marvelous recipe for Achilles' Turtle Soup that might work.

If we're making observations, I'd like to note that much of the ceremonies, rituals, and processes associated with certain major religions seem very similar to what casino designers attempt to do with their edifices. They want a place where people don't think too much about what they're doing or saying, where it's hard to focus on your thoughts and easy to listen and go with the flow. They want impulsive, irrational acceptance of the whole process and everything they do supports this. Razzle-dazzle with the promise of future riches if you'll just play along. Put the coins right here.

I've heard this exact argument from two acquaintances, both of whom are petroleum engineers. I'll ask you the same thing I asked them: Did they teach you this about science at school, or at work?

! Moderator Note Please, you're smart and well-spoken enough to phrase this so it isn't a personal attack.

The #2 problem with the rectal extraction process is its lack of precision.

! Moderator Note You aren't listening. This is a science discussion forum. In order to waste as little precious time as possible, we require more information to base discussions on. Please explain what you want to talk about. Take a look at some other threads if you need a good example of interesting, meaningful ways to start a conversation online. This is too vague to be useful, thread closed, feel free to start another thoughtfully.

! Moderator Note This sounds more like Philosophy than Physics, but discussions usually have some question involved, so the intent of your opening post is unclear. I'm going to move this thread to Philosophy. Please help by giving some more details about your subject.

Ophi makes up for what he lacks in aesthetics with exuberance, but swansont's monopole dancing should have remained theoretical.

I'm having two parties. To the first I'm inviting the strippers, swansont, and Ophiolite. To the second party I'm inviting the strippers, swansont and Ophiolite. Which party do you want to go to?

You're talking about reality here. You're using tools and information you pulled from "the box", and I'm not sure that's fair to someone who doesn't use them. It's clear that you're really messing up anonymousone's intuitive thought processes with all your rational thinking and actual experimentation. You're a professional physicist working with lasers and atomic clocks for the US Naval Observatory. You get paid to make things work, not make guesses and exercise your imagination. It's like you're all suited up for battle, in all the latest gear our technology is capable of, and you're fighting this guy who's dressed in leaves, light bulbs and cork, waving a fish at you and smirking about how "boxy" your armor and weapons look.

With regard to punctuation, after more than 30 years of having the Oxford comma purged from my writings, I'm starting to add it back in where it makes the most sense. I cringe first, then I smile, because I'm finally allowing myself to do what I argued with my English teachers about. I can finally delineate my lists more obviously, meaningfully, and with greater clarity. I was tired of seeing so much ambiguity, especially when list items have multiple words. I don't think textspeak is appropriate anywhere, and I really hope it will die a painful death as more phones are voicetext capable. I think it's a crutch for laziness, justifying itself as efficient and succinct. For me and many others, it says, "You're not worth the time to poke a few more keys, and I don't care if you understand me or not". Textspeak always distracts me. I want to agree with you here, because I also find some writing habits extremely distracting. But a single writer can't know what all his readers find distracting. You can follow all the various rules and still find folks who will object to what you've written. But still, following accepted rules is the best path to understanding, and that should always be the goal of communication. It's not about scoring points for nitpicking. Good answers should only spawn follow-up questions, rather than clarifying questions (e.g., "Where does that thought lead you?" rather than, "What do you mean by that?").

I haven't weighed in on this thread since the first pages, but I've kept up on the posts. I've seen nothing to change my mind that the universe isn't a clever system, but one insight has emerged for me very clearly. The fact that the universe behaves as it does without cleverness is one of the most amazing things I can ever imagine. I mean, any decently intelligent creature can come up with something clever, but for a system like our universe to do what it does on its own, with no intelligence behind it, well that's truly awe-inspiring to me. Way better than "clever".