Dr. Michio Kaku “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence."

[Scotty99]

Michio's opinion is as valid yours or mine on this subject; not much.

 

For sure, and i know how much politics is behind this whole deal it would be hard to have this discussion on a large stage. I just think eventually (thats why i said 10-20 years) we will get to a point where the discussion will HAVE to take place. Max Tegmark (i think thats his name, MIT) has also come out with similar statements to this as well.

[Scotty99]

 

 

Please provide a reference to the scientific paper where this was published.

 

 

 

 

As many people have said similar things, I'm not sure why you think it would be hard to have this discussion. It has been happening for millennia.

 

Surely, but i am talking about science getting to a point where they have to look to a creator for answers. I am not saying that is today, but i think that is what michio's endgame to be.

[Strange]

 

Surely, but i am talking about science getting to a point where they have to look to a creator for answers. I am not saying that is today, but i think that is what michio's endgame to be.

 

 

This has nothing to do with science. It is just a matter of opinion or philosophy.

 

And, as you have no evidence to support these claims of astral projection, we can assume it is nonsense after all.

[Scotty99]

Ya im not the astral guy lol.

 

And my comment is actually aimed at the scientific method, my question is in my lifetime will science get to a point where the evidence builds up strong enough where mainstream science needs to take creationism into account to explain everything we observe around us. Will we get to a point where everything makes sense but you need to *insert creator for it all to fit?

[StringJunky]

Ya im not the astral guy lol.

 

And my comment is actually aimed at the scientific method, my question is in my lifetime will science get to a point where the evidence builds up strong enough where mainstream science needs to take creationism into account to explain everything we observe around us. Will we get to a point where everything makes sense but you need to *insert creator for it all to fit?

We don't need a god/creator to fill the gaps. That is a sign of limited thinking or constructing an answer just to make people feel better. It is more objective, albeit less satisfying, to say "We don't know".

Edited June 20, 2016 by StringJunky

[Strange]

Ya im not the astral guy lol.

 

 

Sorry. Not sure why I got confused about that. (You are much more rational ... )

 

 

 

And my comment is actually aimed at the scientific method, my question is in my lifetime will science get to a point where the evidence builds up strong enough where mainstream science needs to take creationism into account to explain everything we observe around us. Will we get to a point where everything makes sense but you need to *insert creator for it all to fit?

 

I find it hard to imagine what scientific evidence could lead to that conclusion. But, quite obviously, if there were good evidence then science would accept it.

 

But, like all science, people would continue looking for for alternative explanations and further evidence.

[Scotty99]

We don't need a god/creator to fill the gaps. That is a sign of limited thinking or constructing an answer just to make people feel better. It is more objective, albeit less satisfying, to say "We don't know".

 

No not saying now, we still have a lot of research to do with our current theories. But down the road if we have all the blocks lined up but are missing that ONE factor will we be able to accept a creator as the keystone?

[Strange]

 

No not saying now, we still have a lot of research to do with our current theories. But down the road if we have all the blocks lined up but are missing that ONE factor will we be able to accept a creator as the keystone?

 

 

No. A lack of knowledge is not evidence for anything (this is the trap that UFO nuts fall into: unidentified does not equal "alien").

 

You would need specific evidence for a creator.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Astral projection hijack has been split

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/95837-astral-projection-split-from-kaku-thread/

 

[ydoaPs]

After a bit of searching, I wonder if this is really a hoax.

 

See http://blog.drwile.com/?p=14864

It's pretty obviously a hoax, even before the googling. What is a "semi-radius", let alone a "semi-radius tachyon"? If semi-radius tachyon's a theoretical, how was Kaku doing an experiment with them?

 

Then you go on Google and find that these stories have no source other than these stories.

[StringJunky]

It's pretty obviously a hoax, even before the googling. What is a "semi-radius", let alone a "semi-radius tachyon"? If semi-radius tachyon's a theoretical, how was Kaku doing an experiment with them?

 

Then you go on Google and find that these stories have no source other than these stories.

Can't you do an experiment working from principles?

[genisiss mk lll]

The rules of intelligence need only to be unravelled to simply understand them.

[tigrex]

Interesting.

At energies of a few hundred megaelectron volts (MeV; 106 eV), electrons inside the beam are little suffering from atomic electrons; instead, they penetrate the atom and they are scattered because of the positive nucleus. Therefore, whose atoms contain only single protons in their nuclei, the pattern of scattered electrons reveals the size of the proton, if such a beam is fired at liquid hydrogen. At energies more than a gigaelectron volt (GeV; 109 eV), the electrons penetrate with the protons and neutrons, and also their scattering patterns reveal an inner structure. neutrons, Thus and protons are eliminate indivisible than atoms are; indeed, they contain still smaller particles, which happen to be called quarks.