rueberry

could anyone comment on the gravitational impact of white holes, whether are not there have been any discovered in our galaxy and to what extent such a phenemenon is or could affect us?

The end of the world. Interesting concept. I suppose it hasn't been the first time in earth's history. Unfortunately, we may be the first species to actually bring it upon ourselves rather than by some cataclismic event that was outside the abillity of those past to prevent or even foresee. Let us hope not. Indeed, let us hope. We have so much potential as a species. It would be sad if we threw it all away and missed our universal calling. As for as the universe, well, I don't see it ending any time soon. It, however, will go on without us. I think the idea of a universe ending is as unfatimable as one beginning. And, chances are, the ending of the universe is likely to be one thing we do see coming.

the universe is what it is. frankly, i would be surprised if the human race ever got close to understanding its nature before we do as 99 percent of all the species that have ever existed have done. become extinct. still, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. the theories we have now will be used as have those before them, as a stepping stone to better knowledge and more accurate theories. the big bang, god, etc. frankly we simply don't know. but, there is much we do know and, more to come. as a religious fellow once said, " we see through a glass darkly ". we all have a mind and this forum shows that they are diverse, intellegent and worthy to be listened to. and i believe one of you will someday bring us to a new enlightenment in science. as for those among us who believe in god, have faith. for if god exist, science will one day discover him, should he wish to be.

It's my hope that president elect Obama will use Al Gore as his front man to begin a serious dialoge with the American public on global climate change. I also hope that Mr. Obama will, on this issue, ignore the politicians who are owned by special interest. We as a global leader can make this happen. But, we will have to insist that all countries get on board. I don't believe that mankind is the main problem to climate change but, I do believe that we are attributing more than our fair share to it. inow's pale blue dot had an inpact on me and, it brings the message home like few others can. The earth belongs to us all and, therefore, we are all responsible for taken care of it. But, we have to be willing to change. Not just talk. Frankly, I hope that the next time we go to war, it's not for oil. I hope it's over forcing those countries who are short sighted, including my own, to live up to their reponsibillity in keeping this world of ours something we can proudly pass on to our children. A healthy world where we are truly its care taker and not its mortal enemy. But, again, we will have to change, perhaps suffer a little but change nonetheless.

Happy Holidays to you, inow. As a well known icon once said, " live long and prosper. " And, as a side bar, may you have a " kick ass " new year!

sisyphus I disagree with your assertion that: ( Any being which acts of its own accord thus needs some notion of "good" or "bad" (even if it doesn't consciously consider them as such) otherwise there would be no reason to act.) However, my point when trying to ascertain whether freewill can act as a function of any sentient being, artificial or otherwise, absent those constraints of morality and bias, was to querry the possibillity. For the sake of arguement, let us reject randomness as a workable option. To be sentient as a being is contrary to the notion of a random existance. At least, for this discussion. Let us further presume that this being the case determinism is the likely motivator of a sentient being. Where then does the concept of good and bad play a controlling interest? Could not logic and reason be just as likely motivators as good and bad considering that logic would conclude that because I am therefore I must act and reason would conclude that because I must act I must do so as to preserve myself or that I must do so to my detriment in relation to whatever delima is presented assuming that a logical and reason based being would have the abillity to select an outcome based solely on its merit and not a particular morality. Does not the concept of good and bad only come into play when a directive of self preservation is inacted? I understand that if we follow this through then at some point there will be a diversion from this path having other considerations to ponder. Still, that diversion need not presuppose self preservation nor good and bad. Your input?

yes grandpa, no morales. morality is defined by the individual. as you have likely seen, in this life what is moral to one individual is not to another. we live in a society where some believe it is imoral for a woman to wear pants, uncover her head, etc. and where it is totally okay for others that public nudity be allowed. where some believe in capital punnishment and others are disgusted by it. so as a species we choose the groups that agree we our moral code. it could also be argued that one man's morality in freeing him enslaves another. the point i am making is, can logic and not opinion or preference dictate us as a species. you mentioned shame and i understand what you mean but, you must admit that shame is something inflicted upon another by someone who either has the power or majority support of his position and does not necessarilly make the person shamed wrong only silenced. in the past such institutions as the church used this tactic well to further what it thought should be the correct conduct of society. freewill should be that... free and not come at a price. if it does..in anyway, it is not freewill but, rather, submission or adherence to the least constraining social incumberence to the individual and the most constraining being tirany.

pangloss... in answering your question, what i meant about free from bias was not having any loyalties one way or another. human beings have a tendancy to choose the outcome for reasons not necessarilly in regard to the issue at hand but for personal reasons. consider two examples, Data and Mr. Spock on the star tek series or if you've seen the movie war games with mathew broderick. the first examples had so-called prime directives whereas the latter had no interest in who gained in the outcome, only the outcome. personally, i would prefer some stop gap measure such as the prime directive but, as was said, what happens when the creation becomes greater than the creator? will we survive our own creations? also, how amazing will it be should we as a species create another that would likely outlive us yet travel our galaxy to find what is out there on our behalf. will they be our servants or will they be fellow creatures working with us to reach mutual goals of exploration. will we give them the curiousity factor. and in so doing do we chance their outgrowing the desire we have and set their own agendas. the possibillities are boundless. don't you agree?

we as a race are on the verge of creating a sentient being via artificial intelligence within a generation if that long and, potentially a biological one as we venture into the new computer systems based on chaos theory. this new science will advance our progress inexplicably. should this new race we will undoubtably create be given the benefit and perils of human prejadice and morality and most else that comes along with being human or should they simply be created as logic based without the hinderence of bias? i would like to know your thinking regarding any and all aspects of this in society as well as in space exploration itself. martin, because i value your insight, should you read, it would be deeply appreciated. inow, you also if you would be so kind.

well said, sisyphus. in regard to my remark pertaining to " coersion ", i did not mean coersion of the sort we might obviously expect when we hear the word said. and, so, i see i should have used a better word choice. what i meant when using the word was more a coersion of self interest rather than of being overtly made to act against one's personal choice. that said, i have come to the conclusion from the post i have read that free will is not possible for a human being. perhaps, when we are able to create a machine with a brain absent of the social more's we all born into will such a thing exist. the reason i broached this subject to begin with is that when we are able to create a centient being capable of thinking as we, we will have to decide if that creation's thinking processes will include a social contract, ( morales ) or if it will think and react only to the fact at hand.

i'm afraid i am just as mortal and as flawed as anyone else. and forgive me if you mistook me for being however it was you took me as being. i was sincere in my question and still am. input from good people as yourself tends to expand my thinking so that i might see points of reference i myself may not have considered. i am currently of the opinion that free will is more metaphorical than an actuality. and that it is determined by many sources of influence in each individuals respective life. i am searching however for a theory by someone that would indicate free will in its purest sense can be reached by mere mortals. or, do we simply need the concept for the sake of our individualities sake. are we possibly in some mass denial that we are all, in the greatest sense of the word, a collective organism, as a species, whereby, the individual is inherently in need of the many for his preservation in its totallity. as for st. paul, noone can deny him his contribution to his fellow man and the god he chose to serve. he was indeed a prophet if ever there was one.

due to the unimaginable size of our galaxy let alone the universe, it would be vanity in the extreme to think that we are the only life forms that exist. or should i say, not to leave the possibillity open. it is another issue, however, to claim that we are the product of alien intervention without first having solid evidence to support such a remark. the point is well made, who created the aliens if they created us. it is more likely to suppose that they travelled along their own evolutionary path and, that it may have been similar to our own or it may be totally distinct and, pardon the pun, totally alien to ours.

i wonder if you don't mean your intent is to lead a rich happy life. surely we all have intentions to do or become something. But, is not will the deciding factor as to whether or not we actually carry out those desires? further, i suppose my point would be that now that will as become relevant to the outcome, is that will ever truly freely done or is it constrained by the will of others to influence the resulting outcome. thus, if so, was freewill ever an actual or realistic reality in the first place. this, of course, returns us to my original question. is freewill a delusion?

the difference between freewill and will? interesting. i suppose it could be asserted that freewill is of an individuals own bidding without coersion or influence. where-as, " will " might be subject to any number of considerations that prompt an individuals action or activity.

" The road is better than the inn. " (cervantes)

free will, in and of itself, is no more than the abillity or opportunity to decide upon a particular response to any given condition, environment, or, circumstance, etc. etc. etc.. it is not necessarily, however, a decision to act or not to act, absent of some outside influence. it is not irrational to conclude, given this reality, that free will is subject to " Newton's Law " given that it is an active term. would you agree?

I came across an interesting research that is being done regarding a scientist who came up with a device that was able to halt the speed of light down to zero, Please forgive me for not remembering the scientist and giving her her due credit. I will try to get that. This was a piece on the Discovery channel and I was perhaps more interested in the topic rather than the people involved. Again, I apologize to you and to her for my lack of due credit at this time. That being said and, given the topic of what is nothing, could nothingness be a result or occur when light is at zero speed? Any input or postulations? here is the credit for the above regarding stopping the speed of light... Lene Hau and her colleagues created a new form of matter to bring a light beam to a complete stop, then restart it again. (Staff photo by Kris Snibbe)

nothing? I'm amazed how such a topic as nothingness can invite so many ideas on a topic so simple. Nothing is simply that, nothing. not a thing. Yet, here we are extrapolating such concepts as its manifestation in so far as to the outer reaches of time and space. Very good question, though. It has prompted many an opinion and led to many interesting concepts. Very good question on a matter pertaining to no thing. Very good indeed and, I say this without jest or critical feeling.

the ultimate goal of space exploration is, quite frankly, the same as the explorations we have done and are doing here on earth. " To Know. " we as a species are a curious lot and are fascinated with the unknown. as far as how much of the earth we have explored, though not completely sure, given the fact that the earth is mostly comprised of oceans and, that, we have only touched the outer most portion of its land mass, we know very little of our own world, as well. But we will learn given enough time and effort.

free will is a construct of our imaginations rather than a truism. that is, in the realm of physical reality. we are all interconnected by one another and our respective environments. and so are compelled to make choices and acts accordingly. however, if given the luxuary of not having such constraints placed upon us, could we still be freely choosing? i look forward to insight regarding this question of mine.

we can't listen to crackpots ---- even when they are right??? I believe you meant give them credence. but, if they are right, reason dictates we should listen. you do agree?

martin, i understand your frustration but, if you consider our scientific history, it was the so called " crack pots " you carelessly demean that disregarded the so called rules and made speculations based more so on their gut than what were the current ideologies and constructs of their time. martin, i understand your frustration but, if you consider our scientific history, it was the so called " crack pots " you carelessly demean that disregarded the so called rules and made speculations based more so on their gut than what were the current ideologies and constructs of their time. lighten up a little. we need room in science for speculation. speculation. science without curiousity is dead science.

martin, you seem to know what you are talking about

the fact of the matter is, when considering the size of the universe, we cannot under our current theories. i believe that, until we formulate a theory to replace the big bang theory, we will only be chasing our tails. i do not believe that light speed is the limit. it is, however, our current understanding. our past understanding of what we once understood as knowledge gives credence to this assumption. i am entertaining the idea that space, as we percieve it, is more than just space. meaning, perhaps what we are a part of is so alien to our understanding that we could not and would not accept the idea even if told outright.