Dekan

The evidence may seem to show this, as at 2014. However, such evidence is based on difficult and tricky observations. They may not stand up to later research. Let's wait and see. The view may be quite different in a few years' time.

This seems a logical argument for the "Big Crunch" theory. That the Universe started with a source, a kind of original particle. This particle then exploded in a "Big Bang", which flung its constituent matter apart in all directions. Thus creating all the stars and galaxies, that we see today. All rushing dramatically outwards, as a result of the impetus they got from the original explosion. But the outward impetus is being gradually restrained by Gravity. Gravity may seem undramatic and weak, but it operates constantly. Always trying to pull matter back, inwards, towards the source. Eventually, ever so gradually - it will slow down the Universal expansion, and bring it to a stop. Then, Gravity's inward pull will take over the situation. It'll start pulling all matter in the Universe inwards, towards the original central source point. Slowly at first - then faster and faster, as the inverse square law takes increasingly powerful effect. Until all matter arrives together at the centre. There, it will form a new "original particle", which will explode in a new "Big Bang", and throw matter outwards to create a new Universe. Like a "recoiling spring", to use the simile in Dr. Funkenstein's excellent OP

I suppose Newton's Third Law, about action and re-action, does offer a rationale for moral behaviour. Thus - if you act by hitting someone, you'll get a reaction - you'll get hit back. So, don't hit people.

Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels", published in 1726, has a good example of anti-gravity. In Part 3 of the book, "A Voyage to Laputa, Balnibarbi,Glubbdrubdrib, Luggnagg and Japan", the Laputian king lives on a Flying or Floating Island. This is a huge flying-saucer, 4.5 miles in diameter, and 300 yards thick. Its anti-gravity drive comes from a big "loadstone" or magnet. Swift describes the magnet as of "prodigious size" But then adds the disappointing detail that it's "in length six yards, and the thickest part at least three yards over." That always struck me as way too small for the job. Perhaps Swift was being satirical again. Nevertheless, the "Flying Island" impressed me as a child, when I first read the book. And in all the times since then, Part 3 is the section I've re-read most often. (It contains a lot of other scientific, or pseudo-scientific, material. Especially Chapter 5, with its account of the Grand Academy of Laputa, and the projects being researched there - including a kind of Babbage-style "Analytical Engine". But this is going off-topic -sorry)

Doesn't the question boil down to this: Should humans stand on the side of Religion, or on the side of Science. Or, to put it in more personal terms - if you want to improve the human condition, which should you become - a Priest, or a Scientist?

Yes, perhaps. At least the "control" gets easier as one gets older. As the body ages, the sexual urge diminishes, and gives the mind more control. I mean, when one is young, say 20, the genital organs exert a very strong, almost compulsive, influence. And are uppermost in our thoughts most of the time. By the age of 50, their influence has waned. The mind is freed to contemplate other things, such as Philosophy. That could be why Philosophers are usually depicted as old men. Whereas in Science that doesn't seem to apply so much. For example, both Einstein and Newton did all their best work when they were relatively young. On the other hand again, William Herschel was middle-aged before he even started his work in Astronomy.

As I suppose has been pointed out already many times, Abrahamic religions were invented thousands of years ago. At a time when tribes were always fighting each other. The biggest tribe would usually win. So it was important for a tribe to increase its size by making as many children as possible. Children are made by normal sexual intercourse between women and men. Abnormal practices, such as intercourse between men and men (homosexuality), or intercourse by a man with himself (masturbation), may be extraordinarily pleasurable. As we all know. But they don't produce children. So they don't increase the population, and military power, of the tribe. Therefore, in an attempt to discourage such abnormal practices, tribal leaders branded them "sinful". (Which probably greatly increased their allure, but somewhat reduced frequency of occurrence)

It seems to me, that only a minority of people have an inborn interest in "Science". I learned this as a child, when I was fascinated by microscopes, telescopes and chemistry sets. At the age of 10, I could name the planets in the Solar System, in order, with their diameters (as then known) and orbital distances in millions of miles. And all kinds of other scientific stuff. But none of this was of any interest to the other kids. They were only concerned with shouting and fighting, and behaving like animals. Not that the other kids were unintelligent in any absolute sense. Rather, their brains clearly lacked some essential "factor" necessary for an appreciation of Science. Whatever this "factor" may be, it's quite rare. Most people haven't got it. This is proved by any conversation you have with members of the general public. Thanks be, there's this Science Forum, which offers welcome relief to the scientific minority!

Mulling over the above posts, I'm amazed at the sheer chutzpah of some human beings. Who seem to think that the Earth is here solely in order to provide us with a comfortable environment. And that - if the environment changes - in any way which inconveniences us - such changes are "dangerous". And must be resisted . No matter how beneficial the changes might to other life-forms on Earth. For example, suppose the Arctic and Antarctic polar ice-caps completely melt. That will raise ocean-levels by some hundreds of feet, and greatly benefit marine organisms - they'll have more warm water to live in. Of course, such a rise in the ocean will be very troublesome to us. It'll flood many of our big coastal cities, like New York and Washington. Such cities will have to be rebuilt further inland, on higher ground. At huge expense. And the expense will be even greater for low-lying countries like the Netherlands. The Dutch will have to abandon their whole country, and migrate en masse to the Urals or something. But surely that doesn't matter, except from a strictly human perspective. Global warming won't turn the Earth into a second Venus and end all life on Earth! More likely, it will actually increase the amount of life on Earth. It may cause a decrease in the human population, but is that automatically a bad thing?

It is indeed amazing - the crime rates for "theft" in the UK were apparently substantially reduced, when some "theft" was redefined as "lost property". For example, if you phoned the police and complained: "My 50-inch plasma TV's been stolen!" the duty-officer in the police station would record it as: "Lost - one TV". That kept the data off the crime list, and so scientifically reduced the crime rate. All thanks to the power of DATA SCIENCE!

Appreciate your reply. It shows the power of the Left-Wing media. They've apparently made some people think that all Conservatives, if not actually insane, are evil and driven by anger and greed. Thankfully most people are sensible, and don't fall for the media guff. We can still smell a load of carp, when it's pushed in our nostrils!

No, they're not actual quotes! I said they're "a completely hypothetical, but probably, representative, dialogue". We all notice that Liberals are fond of the word "hate" As I think the OP's quote demonstrates. Sorry if that wasn't quite clear.

I don't think Political Conservatism is a form of insanity. Rather, it's a rational consideration - that it's probably best to keep the existing system, until there are good reasons to change it. And the "good reasons" should be rational ones. Not ones based on appeals to emotion, or loaded language. The use of of loaded language is startlingly apparent in the quote from William Todd Schultz, in the OP's #1. In the short quoted passage, we see the following terms applied to views which Schultz didn't like: "Obviously drunk....hate....stupendously ruthless....hate....phallically obsessed....hatefest.....hate....death anxiety....dogmatism....close-mindedness....fear of threat....low self-esteem...." I mean really! Doesn't that kind of language repel anyone who wants to take a rational approach to political issues. But sadly, it does seem to be typical of some "Liberals". They denounce anyone who doesn't agree with them as "insane". Perhaps they think that Republican voters (about 50% of the US electorate) should be put in psychiatric hospitals to be cured of insanity? No - of course I know they wouldn't go that far. But there are some worrying aspects of the language used by Liberals. Especially - this is something everyone notices - their propensity to use the word "hate". As in this completely hypothetical, but probably representative, dialogue: REPUBLICAN: "I think it would be wise for the US to control the flow of immigrants into our country, so that our welfare services can cope, and our industries can make the best use of their talents" LIBERAL: "Why do you hate immigrants?" I'm not trying to start a slanging match, only observing an interesting linguistic phenomenon.

They're in the Republican Party

There's no solidarity in Islam - it's Sunnis against Shi'ites. Like Catholics against Protestants, Muslims against Buddhists, and the whole wearisome load of superstitious nonsense. This petty, stupid squabbling is a painful distraction for intelligent humans who want to get on with Science. But what can we do? Intelligent humans are in a minority. Idiots are running the show.

Wielding pickaxes in the attic, that's a vivid image, but couldn't you just have switched on an electric fire in the living room, then waited a bit. Regarding the wind turbine images, they look like big semaphore-mills, which might impress a time-traveller.from the 18th Century.

Can "ecological destruction" really be sinful? Not at least, from a Biblical viewpoint. Consider these examples from the Bible: 1. In Genesis 1, v.28 -29, God said to Man: "Be fruitful and multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it, rule over the fish in the sea, the birds of heaven, and every living thing that moves upon the Earth" That seems to give Man a wide remit to rule and modify the ecology to human benefit. 2. However in Genesis 6, v. 7 -18, God changed His Mind, and uttered these apocalyptic words: "This race of Man whom I have created, I will wipe them off the face of the Earth - man and beast, reptiles and birds...I intend to destroy them, and the Earth with them...I intend to bring the waters of the flood over the Earth, to destroy every human being under heaven that has the spirit of life. Everything on Earth shall perish." And so followed the Great Flood. This surely constituted a very large-scale divine act of environmental and ecological destruction. Yet God seems to have thought it was perfectly OK, and not at all sinful. If He was right, how can relatively mild, small-scale human acts, like chopping down bits of the Amazonian rain-forest, be sinful?

I'm not sure - may I get back to you on that later?

Knowledge can defined, as the total number of things we know. Which is always limited. Whereas "Ignorance" can be defined as the total number of things we don't know. And since there will always be new things we don't yet know about, Ignorance is unlimited. Which leads to the observation astutely made by radicalsymmetry in #38. The concept of "infinity" is flawed. I think this flaw comes from a simple linguistic artefact. We have a word "infinity", which is a noun. That makes us conceive of it as actual thing. Something concrete, physical. Some endpoint which we could eventually arrive at, and acquire full knowledge of. But that's a delusion. There's only "endlessness". If we stopped using the misleading concept "infinity", our thoughts on many subjects might get clearer.

I would prefer to see Religion excluded altogether from a Science forum. Religion is not scientific, and belongs in the same class as Astrology.

That's a good point. A valuable lesson in military history. Never take any notice of books which discuss questions such as "Should Paulus have attempted a breakout from Stalingrad in 1942", because Paulus, Stalingrad, and indeed 1942, no longer specifically exist. And are therefore irrelevant. I admire such a drastically contemporary approach to history, though it does seem to be rather limiting.

You'd make an excellent casuist, with that line of reasoning!

Well yes, if x is 1 and you're just adding 1 each time. But can you know, in advance, what is the 999,999,999,999,999, 999 +1 digit of Pi? Nobody can, so knowledge is finite. Limited to the last known digit calculated by our biggest supercomputer.

Military guidance from the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 20, v. 11 - 17: "When you advance on a city to attack it, make an offer of peace. If the city accepts the offer and opens its gates to you, then all the people in it shall be put to forced labour and shall serve you. If it does not make peace with you but offers battle, you shall besiege it, and the LORD your God will deliver it into your hands. You shall put all its males to the sword, but you may take the women, the dependants and the cattle for yourselves, and plunder everything else in the city. You may enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemies which the LORD your God gives you. This is what you shall do to cities at a great distance, as opposed to those which belong to nations near at hand. In the cities of these nations whose land the LORD your God is giving you as a patrimony, you shall not leave any creature alive. You shall annihilate them......" Are Israeli military operations influenced by this text, and don't some Israeli settlers regard Palestine as "near at hand", and part of their "patrimony" ?

Surely the answer is - your knowledge is finite. The example you give, is really only this simplistic proposition: "If you start with a number N, you can add 1 to it, so that N becomes N + 1 ". Thus "1 + 1 = 2" This proposition is true. (And indeed, looks like a kind of Euclidean-style "axiom" of maths). But does it, by itself, provide an adequate understanding of numbers? Obviously not. It doesn't account for the infinite range of possible numbers between 1 and 2 . Such as 1.2, 1.55, 1.777, and so on. So if you only know that "the number which comes after 1 is 2", then your knowledge is definitely finite.