What if physics doesn't suffice our expectations of reality?

[rigney]

I'm not a big fan of Richard Dawkins since he is a total atheist, and me a whimpering agnostic. But I must give kudos to knowledge that is not biased, and only making a statement. 22 minutes in length, but well worth the time to watch. Is it phiosophical rhetoric, or does it ring a sense of truth?

Edited June 18, 2012 by rigney

[Greg H.]

Haven't watched the video yet - I am still working my way through the TED Talks series. I am just curious why his religious stance (or yours) matters at all, and why you felt the need to preface your topic with an exposition of the difference.

[rigney]

Haven't watched the video yet - I am still working my way through the TED Talks series. I am just curious why his religious stance (or yours) matters at all, and why you felt the need to preface your topic with an exposition of the difference.

 

I didn't quite think of it as an exposition, but that's a fair question. Basiclly, I am a cautious individual, and if you have read or listened to any of Richards philosophy you soon realize he is a total Atheist. Which means, the glass is definitly empty or full. I am dichotomous. No ill intent, just being practical. Actually I like listening to him. Edited June 18, 2012 by rigney

[Greg H.]

I didn't quite think of it as an exposition, but that's a fair question. Basiclly, I am a cautious individual, and if you have read or listened to any of Richards philosophy you soon realize he is a total Atheist. Which means, the glass is definitly empty or full. I am dichotomous. No ill intent, just being practical. Actually I like listening to him.

 

Fair enough, and I definitely appreciate the honest consideration of the question. Some people would have just blown it off.

[HenryB]

Hawkins is just having fun with us. Anyone peddling a yarn that in a billion or so years all of the universe will dissolve into nothing got to be a joker. He is being ridiculous and trolling for fools. Don’t fall for it.

 

 

[imatfaal]

Well there is definitely someone trolling and personally I don't think it is Dawkins.

[rigney]

Hawkins is just having fun with us. Anyone peddling a yarn that in a billion or so years all of the universe will dissolve into nothing got to be a joker. He is being ridiculous and trolling for fools. Don’t fall for it.

 

Dawkins is actually who I was referring to. He is a materialist, (Biologist) and Hawkins, he's the real McCoy, a (Physisist). I guess it's only a matter of what someone wants to believe, especially if they are already leaning in that direction. Having read some of Darwins stuff, research; I can see where Dawkins justifies his basis for a constantly evolving system. Everything from a single cell to a blue whale. These are physical things we can touch and see and in many cases able to control and alter ourselves. When science say they can boost corn growh and yeild through genetic engineering and you see the results in just a few short years, it doesn't take much to convince you that the process works. A more plump and juicy turkey for Thanksgiving, no problem. A bit of genetic tinkering and we can grow 25 & 30# ers.

Hawkins and physics are to me a whole different ball game. And yes, it's because I understand very little of physics other than basic principals and even then I'm not always sure of the facts. So, when physicists predict the absolutely un-predictable and draw it up like a scrabble sheet, it's troublesome to many of us. And for gods sake, unless you are one of the fellows; never ask a question that you didn't answer with your own question. If it requires more than a wink and a nod. Brrrrr! Well, maybe this whole thing may freeze over in a billion years or so. But to whom are you going to complain if things work out differently?

Edited June 19, 2012 by rigney

[Aethelwulf]

Dawkins is actually who I was referring to. He is a materialist, (Biologist) and Hawkins, he's the real McCoy, a (Physisist). I guess it's only a matter of what someone wants to believe, especially if they are already leaning in that direction. Having read some of Darwins stuff, research; I can see where Dawkins justifies his basis for a constantly evolving system. Everything from a single cell to a blue whale. These are physical things we can touch and see and in many cases able to control and alter ourselves. When science say they can boost corn growh and yeild through genetic engineering and you see the results in just a few short years, i doesn't take much to convince you that the process works. A more plump and juicy turkey for Thanksgiving, no problem. A bit of genetic tinkering and we can grow 25 & 30# ers.

Hawkins and physics are to me a whole different ball game. And yes, it's because I understand very little of physics other than basic principals and even then I'm not always sure of the facts. So, when physicists predict the absolutely un-predictable and draw it up like a scrabble sheet, it's troublesome to many of us. And for gods sake, unless you are one of the fellows; never ask a question that you didn't answer with your own question. If it requires more than a wink and a nod. Brrrrr! Well, maybe this whole thing may freeze over in a billion years or so. But to whom are you going to complain if things work out differently?

 

Hawkins?

 

You do of course mean...Steven Hawking. Has a ''g'' and there is no ''s''.

[rigney]

Hawkins?

 

You do of course mean...Steven Hawking. Has a ''g'' and there is no ''s''.

 

Yes! My bad! But see how physics frighten me? I can't even spell the name of this gentle giant properly.