physics with mathematics, philosophy , engineering and religion .

[yahya515]

since early ages ,people began to develop pure ideas about things like , life, death, gods starting from the famous Greek philosophers, who developed their philosophical ideas through ages. when physics get involved in life, beginning with Aristotle ideas, he used the same shape to develop his (theories), without any kind of mathematics, but he failed . and that is for two reasons: first, pure ideas are very difficult to develop. second , he did not do a lot of experiments, he thought in science as pure knowledge .

modern physics , combines mathematics, engineering, philosophy, and a little bit of religion!

for , mathematics it is clear , when Sir Isaac Newton , invented calculus to describe continuously changing phenomena , like planets motion.

engineering , appears in the structure of the atom, although the structure of an atom is most basic concept in both physics and chemistry , but it was build by engineering concepts!

philosophy, is behind all theories , when a scientist has a theory he (decorates ) it with a little bit of philosophy, Albert Einstein declares, I have a theory , I call it relativity, in my theory nothing can go faster than the speed of light, and I add some philosophy, if something moved faster than light speed it would go beyond time!

and the big bang theory itself is philosophy.

religion , appears as ( contradiction) , everything religion declares is wrong, science is the the opposite of religion, religion says, the universe has been created by a creator, science says, no , the universe existed after a big bang, people are sons and daughters of a one man and a one woman, science says , no , the human being transformed from a monkey.

I think this hatred from science to religion appeared at church early ages, when the church declares that the earth is at the center of the universe everything moves around it including the sun ! and of course one person went to death for not believing in such ideas.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

since early ages ,people began to develop pure ideas about things like , life, death, gods starting from the famous Greek philosophers, who developed their philosophical ideas through ages. when physics get involved in such ideas.

 

You have a very perceptive mind! I must say I admire your approach. I do not necessarily agree with everything you say , but if I was in your shoes now... You have an interesting mental life ahead of you. , ! Don't do what I did and become an engineer , or you will spend much of your life following other peoples designs. Go into research, right now and fly into the future, fulfilled with an ever increasing sensation of discovery. You will probably be poorer than if you became an engineer. But far moor fulfilling to the brain you have.

 

Or at least that's what I think will happen to you! But who the heck am I ? Come back to me in 30 years time and tell me how you got on ? I will have moved on ,I imagine by that time ! Checking out if there was or wasn't an afterlife ? I'll lower a thread of cotton with a bit of afterlife tied on the end , out of the sky , in front of your face , if there is !

 

How is that for a bit of interesting research ?

 

Mike

Edited February 8, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

philosophy, is behind all theories , when a scientist has a theory he (decorates ) it with a little bit of philosophy, Albert Einstein declares, I have a theory , I call it relativity, in my theory nothing can go faster than the speed of light, and I add some philosophy, if something moved faster than light speed it would go beyond time!

and the big bang theory itself is philosophy.

I am not sure what you mean be decorates with philosophy. For sure there is the philosophy of physics and maybe to a lesser extent in this context, the philosophy of mathematics at play here. We need a little philosophy to guide our thinking and steer our thoughts. Then there is philosophy that philosophers do that comes from the interpretation and consequences of the theory.

 

The traveling faster than light - backwards in time thing is not what I would call philosophy. It comes from the mathematical structure of special relativity. One can mathematically show that within the theory if something travels faster than the speed of light then one can always find a reference frame in which the object is moving backwards in time. What this "means" maybe philosophy, but the mathematics lead to this.

 

Again I have similar comments with the big bang. For sure it has impacted on philosophy, But we have a mathematical model of the evolution of the Universe just after the initial singularity and this agrees with our observations very well.

[moth]

I think one major difference between science and religion is: religion demands it knows the answers, and science is happy to ask questions.

One path looks like a dead end.

Edited February 8, 2014 by moth

[yahya515]

I think one major difference between science and religion is: religion demands it knows the answers, and science is happy to ask questions.

One path looks like a dead end.

you are right ,there is kind of flexibility in science, theories can be changed and you believe in what you think is true, not in what you should believe in.

[moth]

I don't believe anybody knows what I should believe.

Who decides what should be believed?

[zapatos]

I don't believe anybody knows what I should believe.

Who decides what should be believed?

Religion

[moth]

When it comes to religion I agree with mr. Zappa.
"a book of rules of ancient date
designed to make you all feel great
while you fold, spindle, and mutilate those non-believers from a neighboring state" -Frank Zappa

Edited February 9, 2014 by moth

[ZVBXRPL]

 

since early ages ,people began to develop pure ideas about things like , life, death, gods starting from the famous Greek philosophers, who developed their philosophical ideas through ages. when physics get involved in life, beginning with Aristotle ideas, he used the same shape to develop his (theories), without any kind of mathematics, but he failed . and that is for two reasons: first, pure ideas are very difficult to develop. second , he did not do a lot of experiments, he thought in science as pure knowledge .

modern physics , combines mathematics, engineering, philosophy, and a little bit of religion!

for , mathematics it is clear , when Sir Isaac Newton , invented calculus to describe continuously changing phenomena , like planets motion.

engineering , appears in the structure of the atom, although the structure of an atom is most basic concept in both physics and chemistry , but it was build by engineering concepts!

philosophy, is behind all theories , when a scientist has a theory he (decorates ) it with a little bit of philosophy, Albert Einstein declares, I have a theory , I call it relativity, in my theory nothing can go faster than the speed of light, and I add some philosophy, if something moved faster than light speed it would go beyond time!

and the big bang theory itself is philosophy.

religion , appears as ( contradiction) , everything religion declares is wrong, science is the the opposite of religion, religion says, the universe has been created by a creator, science says, no , the universe existed after a big bang, people are sons and daughters of a one man and a one woman, science says , no , the human being transformed from a monkey.

I think this hatred from science to religion appeared at church early ages, when the church declares that the earth is at the center of the universe everything moves around it including the sun ! and of course one person went to death for not believing in such ideas.

 

A static infinite universe is a cosmological model in which the universe is both spatially infinite and temporally infinite

Static infinite universe was first proposed by Giordano Bruno, the Catholic Church burned him at the stake for heresy

He wasn't the only scientist to have a run in with the church

The first person to propose the expansion of the universe theory and big bang origin of the universe theory was Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian Catholic priest

Scientia - knowledge Philosophia - love of wisdom

These words have lost their meaning in the modern scientific community

Religious dogma rules the world of "science" and don't dare go against religion or you will be discredited and labelled a crank

[arc]

I don't believe anybody knows what I should believe.

Who decides what should be believed?

 

 

Religion

 

Ouch! you got ZAPPED!

Edited February 9, 2014 by arc

[DimaMazin]

 

I think this hatred from science to religion appeared at church early ages, when the church declares that the earth is at the center of the universe everything moves around it including the sun ! and of course one person went to death for not believing in such ideas.

 

The idea wasn't dangerous. Supporters of the idea were dangerous.

[michel123456]

The idea wasn't dangerous. Supporters of the idea were dangerous.

There is a huge misunderstanding here.

 

Take an example.

Say you catch a politician telling a lie on a specific subject. Can you trust this guy anymore? on any other subject? The answer is: No. When you catch someone telling a lie, you lose your trust.

 

That's the problem encountered by all churches across the ages. They don't want to lose trust because to them it trust=faith. So they cannot accept being caught not telling the truth (IOW lying). That has nothing to do with the subject, that being about the flat earth, the earth being at the centre of the Universe, the age of the earth and so on.

 

The supporters are aiming to support their faith against people telling a "different" truth. They believe that faith is more important than anything else (certainly more than science). That happens today, that will happen tomorrow.

[yahya515]

That happens today, that will happen tomorrow.

There is a difference here ,you fought against religion, and you won, we will fight against misunderstanding of religion and we will win.

[ajb]

There is a difference here ,you fought against religion, and you won, we will fight against misunderstanding of religion and we will win.

Okay, before this thread ends up in trouble let us not argue about religion here. Lets try to keep this historical rather than personal.

 

michel123456 is probably right, initial problems with the Church and science come from not wanting to admit that what the Church has said is not 100% accurate. Note that this works both ways in the sense that many scientists were religious and what they discovered challenged their strict beliefs. Charles Darwin is a good example of this.

[michel123456]

There is a difference here ,you fought against religion, and you won, we will fight against misunderstanding of religion and we will win.

I hope there is no fight.

IMHO if churches of all kind could make a step aside and consider their own sacred scriptures as a poor human translation of divine words instead of a literal transcription, that would make a better world.

I think it is possible to accept human mistakes without interfering with faith.

Okay, before this thread ends up in trouble let us not argue about religion here. Lets try to keep this historical rather than personal.

 

michel123456 is probably right, initial problems with the Church and science come from not wanting to admit that what the Church has said is not 100% accurate. Note that this works both ways in the sense that many scientists were religious and what they discovered challenged their strict beliefs. Charles Darwin is a good example of this.

There are also examples of scientists who believe.

To speak frankly, I get the very strong impression that the Big Bang Theory complies with religions of all sorts. A theory of the Universe without creation would be much more difficult to be accepted by the scientific community for this reason only.

Edited February 9, 2014 by michel123456

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I hope there is no fight.

IMHO if churches of all kind could make a step aside and consider their own sacred scriptures as a poor human translation of divine words instead of a literal transcription, that would make a better world.

I think it is possible to accept human mistakes without interfering with faith.

 

There are also examples of scientists who believe.

To speak frankly, I get the very strong impression that the Big Bang Theory complies with religions of all sorts. A theory of the Universe without creation would be much more difficult to be accepted by the scientific community for this reason only.

The original proposal of this thread is :-

 

Rate Topic

physics with mathematics, philosophy , engineering and religion .

Started by yahya515, Yesterday, 06:13 AM

 

Which includes philosophy and religion as well as mathematics and engineering!

 

Why does everybody get so spooked at the hint of something higher than human .

 

The Greeks philosophers , put me right if I am wrong michel123456 ,

 

They stood on the acropolis and looked up and thought the Gods ,Zeus, Mercury and others were in control . Men of far older civilizations looked to the stars and heavens and thought of higher beings. Why do so many scientists run for cover nowerdays when one even hints at the idea of something greater than humans , when big bangs , to black holes to quasars to atomic energies enough to make you quiver exist out there and they are ALL so much bigger and more powerfull than humans . Why do scientists have to cling like limpets to a rock to the idea of " There is NOTHING Out there. .?

 

Mike

Edited February 9, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[michel123456]

The original proposal of this thread is :-

 

Rate Topic

physics with mathematics, philosophy , engineering and religion .

Started by yahya515, Yesterday, 06:13 AM

 

Which includes philosophy and religion as well as mathematics and engineering!

 

Why does everybody get so spooked at the hint of something higher than human .

 

The Greeks philosophers , put me right if I am wrong michel123456 ,

 

They stood on the acropolis and looked up and thought the Gods ,Zeus, Mercury and others were in control . Men of far older civilizations looked to the stars and heavens and thought of higher beings. Why do so many scientists run for cover nowerdays when one even hints at the idea of something greater than humans , when big bangs , to black holes to quasars to atomic energies enough to make you quiver exist out there and they are ALL so much bigger and more powerfull than humans . Why do scientists have to cling like limpets to a rock to the idea of " There is NOTHING Out there. .?

 

Mike

i missed your point.

 

_____________

Side note: the Greek philosophers did not stay on the Acropolis that housed temples. They stood anywhere else, those in Athens sometimes in Platon's Academy about 3 km far from the Acropolis.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

i missed your point.

 

_____________

Side note: the Greek philosophers did not stay on the Acropolis that housed temples. They stood anywhere else, those in Athens sometimes in Platon's Academy about 3 km far from the Acropolis.

Well what I was trying to say ,using Man, as a collective word for 'men and women'.

 

From the dawn of civilisation man has looked up at the starry sky ( usually at night ) , though also in the day , with the sun , and marvelled at the magnitude, majesty, splendour , beauty, brilliance and a thousand other expletives, until about 150 years ago .and his (his and hers ) conclusion was, that there was something much bigger, much more intelligent, much more knowledgable than the men and women he/she saw running about the earth. Suddenly all scientists are running for cover at the very hint, at the idea our forefathers had entertained for thousands of years. Yet we look up at those starry heavens, with vastly more detailed images than available to our forefathers and yet start getting the gitters at the hint of anything superhuman ( namely greater than human) being there.

And rather opting for. 'Absolutely NOTHING' being responsible for what we see in even greater depth than our ancestors.

 

If it is because of the investigations of the Beagle ship and one of its travellers, Charles Darwin. He was over off South America to investigate the ' Uplift of land strata ( as he was a geologist ) caused by earthquakes. He witnessed one such earthquake and uplift of land and concluded that the Andes were formed that way. While there he noticed things about the species and came up with a theory on the origin of species. A bit like a speculation. Scientists now still are running for cover, do we think like our forefathers or do we think of ' Absolutely NOTHING ' is behind everything. I am not saying that natural selection is wrong, as clearly it works in all sorts of ways. But ...come on .... Not ...NOTHING.... It does not even make sense to a growing number of intelligent scientists. All that lot that modern telescopes and observations from the very small , through 2 million suns collapsed into a black hole in the centre of the Milky Way , to the whole cosmic structure of the universe. You have got to be joking Not ... From. Nothing. With no intelligence , anywhere , nothing , nowhere , ? Surely not ! Come on that is stretching things a bit too far ! This is NOT established RELIGION Just COMMON SENSE !

Edited February 9, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Phi for All]

Why do scientists have to cling like limpets to a rock to the idea of " There is NOTHING Out there. .?

 

This isn't the default position.

 

It's more rational to say, "To date, there is no need for a supernatural explanation of the workings of the universe." Scientific methodology tells us we should be skeptical that god(s) exist and that they don't, simultaneously. We don't know for certain, just that so far it seems unlikely. Best we can do, given that we're talking about an unobservable yet omnipotent being.

[John Cuthber]

Well what I was trying to say ,using Man, as a collective word for 'men and women'.

 

From the dawn of civilisation man has looked up at the starry sky ( usually at night ) , though also in the day , with the sun , and marvelled at the magnitude, majesty, splendour , beauty, brilliance and a thousand other expletives, until about 150 years ago .and his (his and hers ) conclusion was, that there was something much bigger, much more intelligent, much more knowledgable than the men and women he/she saw running about the earth. Suddenly all scientists are running for cover at the very hint, at the idea our forefathers had entertained for thousands of years. Yet we look up at those starry heavens, with vastly more detailed images than available to our forefathers and yet start getting the gitters at the hint of anything superhuman ( namely greater than human) being there.

And rather opting for. 'Absolutely NOTHING' being responsible for what we see in even greater depth than our ancestors.

 

If it is because of the investigations of the Beagle ship and one of its travellers, Charles Darwin. He was over off South America to investigate the ' Uplift of land strata ( as he was a geologist ) caused by earthquakes. He witnessed one such earthquake and uplift of land and concluded that the Andes were formed that way. While there he noticed things about the species and came up with a theory on the origin of species. A bit like a speculation. Scientists now still are running for cover, do we think like our forefathers or do we think of ' Absolutely NOTHING ' is behind everything. I am not saying that natural selection is wrong, as clearly it works in all sorts of ways. But ...come on .... Not ...NOTHING.... It does not even make sense to a growing number of intelligent scientists. All that lot that modern telescopes and observations from the very small , through 2 million suns collapsed into a black hole in the centre of the Milky Way , to the whole cosmic structure of the universe. You have got to be joking Not ... From. Nothing. With no intelligence , anywhere , nothing , nowhere , ? Surely not ! Come on that is stretching things a bit too far ! This is NOT established RELIGION Just COMMON SENSE !

You seem to think it's common sense that our universe didn't pop up out of nowhere.

There is evidence that it did.

The alternative you seem to be putting forward is some "intelligence" that built the universe.

OK where did He come from?

Your "objection" to the scientific view is even more irrational than the thing you are complaining about.

A creator?

"Surely not ! Come on that is stretching things a bit too far ".

it's certainly stretching things more then the Big Bang does.

Did you not realise that?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

.... "To date, there is no need for a supernatural explanation of the workings of the universe."

skeptical that god(s) exist ..... We don't know for certain, just that so far it seems unlikely. ...............omnipotent being.

You seem to think it's common sense that our universe didn't pop up out of nowhere...................There is evidence that it did.

 

 

The above and below have responded with interesting comments.

 

..

.. .............. common sense that our universe didn't pop up out of nowhere. There is evidence that it did.

................putting forward is some "intelligence" that built the universe. ...................OK where did He come from?

....................................................................A creator?

 

 

I deliberately have not mentioned , that I am saying , a God, A creator omnipotent being . is responsible . Whether I think these things or not. I deliberately have not mentioned these , why ?

 

Because ,historically it seems that , it is like lifting a piece of galvanised iron sheet that has been left covering some waste land for some time. On first lifting , a myriad of ants and various creatures are exposed , who immediately flee for cover in every direction . Its as if their sensitivity to light and exposure is too great. within seconds , they have gone to ground.

 

So it seems , can be the response of many scientists, to the issue i raised.,

 

That of the origin of the universe in all its magnitude and magnificence came .

 

...from some form of cleverness or from absolutely Nothing

 

 

What I was saying was that .

 

I can think of a point that was an absolute Nothing and now there is the Grand Universe

 

[that I have mentioned several times. ]

 

I find it common sense that , some form of cleverness, in fact I would think a great deal of clever systems that must have been active to convert .. absolute Nothing to a Grand Universe .

And that must be beyond human endevour ( super Human).

 

Now Whatever this :-

 

. "some form of cleverness, in fact I would think a great deal of clever systems that must have been active to convert " is

is up for grabs.

 

[] Some form of Master race already existing 10, Trillion in Number , beavering away with mechanism which would make our scientific minds burn

 

[] Some form of Thing that self generated from out of Chaos, in logic, number, math.probability, selective feedback system , god like being .

 

[] To an omniscient , that you have spoken about.

 

[] Any and many more is up for grabs.. But Nothing ...then the whole shebang ..to me not common sense

 

 

.Mike.-

Edited February 9, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[John Cuthber]

Phi for All, on 09 Feb 2014 - 6:58 PM, said:

 

.... "To date, there is no need for a supernatural explanation of the workings of the universe."

skeptical that god(s) exist ..... We don't know for certain, just that so far it seems unlikely. ...............omnipotent being.

You seem to think it's common sense that our universe didn't pop up out of nowhere...................There is evidence that it did.

..

-

 

John Cuthber, on 09 Feb 2014 - 7:21 PM, said:

.. .............. common sense that our universe didn't pop up out of nowhere. There is evidence that it did.

................putting forward is some "intelligence" that built the universe. ...................OK where did He come from?

 

....................................................................A creator?

 

 

..-

Did that get scrambled somehow when you posted it?

[Phi for All]

Now Whatever this :-

 

. "some form of cleverness, in fact I would think a great deal of clever systems that must have been active to convert " is

is up for grabs.

 

While you're being a nice guy and letting us define "the cleverness", you're also Begging the Question here, since by defining "the cleverness" we're assuming a clever system created the universe. I just can't go that far. It could have been but I see no evidence, and my own awe and incredulity is not enough to support such a stance.

 

Did that get scrambled somehow when you posted it?

 

I think it was less a case of eggs beaten and more one of cherries picked.

[moth]

Religion

I up voted the religion comment because I thought you were joking, but now I'm not sure.

Is it your position that this nebulous religion has some imperative to dictate what people should think?

[Ender]

You seem to think it's common sense that our universe didn't pop up out of nowhere.

There is evidence that it did.

The alternative you seem to be putting forward is some "intelligence" that built the universe.

OK where did He come from?

Your "objection" to the scientific view is even more irrational than the thing you are complaining about.

A creator?

"Surely not ! Come on that is stretching things a bit too far ".

it's certainly stretching things more then the Big Bang does.

Did you not realise that?

 

I'm not sure if I believe that our Universe came from a superior intelligence of some sort.. but I'm almost sure we don't have any evidence

about anything that came before the Big Bang. We don't even know if the laws of our Universe apply where there is no time and space!

It's far more difficult than thinking outside the box.