Posts posted by disarray
But you did assert this, "more specifically, moral and linguistic capability to repress or modify their aggressive instincts in anything remotely resembling what humans are obviously capable of is not defensible." and we both know I was providing evidence that suggests you're wrong.I have provided concrete evidence in the form of charts and quotes, key phrase being "remotely resembling." But again, what point are you trying to make that is germane to the OP or some sub issue thereof? I am surprised the moderator has stepped in, because this discussion seems like a whole new topic.
Now it's your turn to provide some evidence, to defend this and the above assertion, rather than just move the goal posts, again.
I have no idea what goal posts you are referring to. That chimps are notoriously and egregiously aggressive needs little support:
Chimpanzees are inherently violent, reports a study spanning five decades that included observations of apes such as this one in the Goualougo Triangle in the Republic of Congo. http://www.livescience.com/47885-chimpanzee-aggression-evolution.html
And again, what point are you trying to make about times when religion had real power?
Let me remind you that this is all peripheral to my actual point and that you (yet again) are failing to accurately comprehend what is being written by others.
As a one time retort: I agree with Tampitump that you are unnecessarily aggressive, not to mention insulting. Rather than dropping out also, I am choosing not to respond to any remarks other than those with content relevant to the thread. However, please refrain from your continued insults, both here and in other threads. Thank you.0
He has a bad habit of this in other threads, too. Some sort of issue with comprehension, coupled with a bad habit of reading things into comments their authors had no intention of conveying.
So now you are into cyberbullying? Again, please refrain from the personal attacks on my writing and reading habits, as well as other personal attacks both here and elsewhere. Thank you.0
We are ordinary people sharing information, not paid employees.
Point taken. However, I wouldn't make such assumptions about my friend or child in such a manner, even though I am not paid to be civil.
But yes we are all ordinary. I tend to assume people are here to learn...but it seems that there are indeed bloggers who go out of their way to irritate and badger others.....I am not one of those people.0
I apologise. Its been a bad day.
That's weird. Try this one: http://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html
'"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada.'
No, I was on my article by mistake. Then I went to your article which seems to center on the non-expanding and hence infinitely old universe, so I don't know why you are explaining expansion to me (which I understand) , as an expanding universe does imply one with a definite age as I understand it. So yes, there may be some rationale for believing in a static universe....but again, I think that the phrase "infinite" is being used to suggest that in such a theory we would have no way of determining the age of the universe. However, even in a static universe, I see no reason to assume that it is infinitely old just because we can't determine its age.
I follow a bit about your reference to infinities, but I think that manipulating numbers does not necessarily reflect what might be happening in the universe; that is, I don't see that one is actually manipulating any empirical data.
I felt you were insulting Strange.
Not at all. I understand he may have been tired or stressed or whatever. But no, I can't imagine an instructor audibly sighing with impatience when a student is genuinely trying to understand something....that is insulting. It's nice to defend people, but you were making assumptions that weren't true.0
You aren't taking in what he's saying and he is not speculating. People only have a finite amount of patience and Strange is very patient. If he's sighing it means your attitude is pissing him off because you are not listening. You are clearly not liking the the answers he's giving you and yet you plead curiosity.
Hmmm. Since when do you read minds. Your trying to blame me as having an attitude or not listening is rather insulting. I am not pleading curiosity...what do think I am doing?. So what if I disagree with his answers. I know that I am trying hard to understand things. As far as I am concerned you are slandering me and my motives. Please refrain.-1
The first sentence is: The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity.
But again, this assumes some sort of contraction theory. I see nothing else in the article
Indeed. This is an initial attempt to include quantum effects. It is, however, consistent with all the evidence we have.
So it seems you are not arguing that there was a Big Bang, as according to your article, the theory discards the notion of singularities, and thus, "These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age." So I don't see how you are having your cake and eating it too; that is, I don't see how you are accepting the idea of expansion (if that is the case), and agreeing with this unorthodox model at the same time.
What you are describing is the alternative to infinite in size: "finite but unbounded" (the usual 2D analogy is the surface of the Earth).
Yes, I agree. My point exactly. Are you suggesting it is infinite and unbounded? Again, it seems you are not talking about a standard/current model involving the Big Bang or the expanding universe.
That is the observable universe, not the whole universe. The whole universe is expected to be many times larger than that (or infinite). It is also possible that the whole universe is smaller than the observable universe!
I didn't say it was the whole universe.
No that is NOT what they say. 250 is a LOWER BOUND.
I'm going to agree with those who say that the number 250 was thrown out there for a reason...and it is a long way from infinity, and does indeed suggest that there is a finite number that one might come up with.
Of course it isn't. Take the natural numbers; there are infinite number of them. Now multiply them all by two; you have "expanded" the number line but it is still infinite. Or look at the Hilbert Hotel paradox. Or ...
I'm going to go along with those who say that you can't add on to infinity, by the definition of the word, "infinity", itself, even though mathematically you can have infinities 'greater' than ( some would say different or denser) other infinities, as per Cantor's Diagonal Argument.
Sigh. Expansion is not a speed. Expansion is not a speed. Expansion is not a speed. ...
I don't have the time (or patience) to explain the difference between scaling and speed right now. I'll come back to it ...
Okay, but my point still holds that you are starting with a small point and expanding at a finite speed. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you are sounding a little condescending or supercilious with all this sighing and impatience. Maybe dealing with people who have a sense of curiosity but less knowledge than yourself is not your forte.0
The universe has a density that suggests it is flat, which means that it is likely to be infinite in extent. What is the probability of a starting universe expanding with infinite speed to create an infinite expanse in a finite amount of time?
By infinite in extent, it was my understanding that the universe curves back on itself, and therefore has no finite edges or boundaries, not that it is is literally infinite in size. According to current thinking it is about 93 billion light years in diameter, but again, where are you getting evidence that the unknown is infinite, or that it is the current or standard model that it is?
I think we are getting hungup on the scientific use of the term infinite:
"The Vardanyan model says that the curvature of the Universe is tightly constrained around 0. In other words, the most likely model is that the Universe is flat. A flat Universe would also be infinite and their calculations are consistent with this too. These show that the Universe is at least 250 times bigger than the Hubble volume."
So here we have a team coming up with the latest model...on the one hand they use the word infinite, yet, when it comes down to it, they give a finite estimate, e.g., circa 250+
Also, it seems rather logically absurd to speak of an universe that is infinite in size expanding even more. If you are espousing the Big Bang model, how is it that one goes from a very small point in size to an infinite size in, say 13.9 billion years, while expanding at the speed of light?0
Since you obviously did click the link, with a search title "great ape sense of fairness", I don't understand why you need further explanation.
Ummm.. How is one defining fairness? Can one say that an ape's sense of fairness is in the same ball park as that of humans? In any case, what does an apes sense of fairness have to do with the OP or with sub-issues within this thread. In short, what is your point other than to say that apes can be described as having a rudimentary sense of fairness? So yes, as far as I am concerned, you do need to give some explanation, particularly as I don't recall myself claiming that apes had no sense of fairness, or no intelligence, or no means of restraining aggression, etc.
Most commonly, the ape most frequently used in this discussion (almost exclusively) has been the chimp. Now if you look at chimps and their behavior, they are among the most unrulish, unrepressed, uncivilized, unpeaceful animals on the face of the earth when it comes to aggression and sex (pretty much 24/7) in the wild. So again, what is your point?0
Here is a recent example: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
(This has prompted some of the worst examples of science reporting ever.)
Dont see anything about an infinitely old universe. I do see that there is a theory that it might be possible that "the universe starts to shrink until it collapses in on itself and becomes an infinitely dense point again," and perhaps, one might assume, the cycle continues.
However, there is no particular evidence to show that this might be the case. Indeed, the consensus seems to be that the universe is continuing to expand and will continue to do so (perhaps at increasing rates), and, given entropy, everything will disintegrate in due time, i.e., trillions of years.
Of course, if the universe is expanding, one can surmise that it can reverse itself. Hawkings entertained this notion for a while before abandoning it, and even thought time might run backwards, with people, for example, unlighting their cigarettes.
So, again, as far as I am concerned, there is no real evidence that it cycles, and such speculation is no less metaphysical than Nietzsche's concept of the Eternal Recurrence.0
He can have his cake and eat it. GR says nothing about what initiated the BB phase; it only models to that point.
But don't follow. You are just agreeing that GR says nothing in support of an infinitely old universe...so the notion is, again, just metaphysical speculation.0
I agree. The "God particle", "genetic Adam & Eve", et al, were all a bit disingenuous.
Yes, I recall that there was a lot of media scrambling to clarify that the Higgs Boson field was not a discovery that somehow proved that the universe originated on its own without the help of an anthropomorphic God. But just between you and me, I think that science is trying to do just that.0
Well I did try to relate this tangent to the OP in my post #231, perhaps you could take a stab.
As to your assertion:
The OP seems to be little more than a list of the horrors and superstitions that accompanied, or rather, was an integral part of a certain religion in the not too distant past. More recently, the thread veered off into a discussion as to whether the world would or would not be much more peaceful if religion vanished. Then the claim was made that it would not because religion is not a cause or a significant cause of aggression (particularly with reference to between-group aggression, since people have quite similar aggressive instincts as other apes, and perhaps similar means to repress and control said instincts, so that the disappearance of religion would not reduce world conflict significantly. Somehow the discussion further veered off into a discussion as to how much smarter humans were than apes.
I have argued that there is a great difference between humans and apes in this regard, and that religion has played both a significant role as a catalyst to acts of control and/or violence as well as a significant role in repressing/modifying/controlling human aggression (though I would clarify that its main focus is on controlling and repression sexual expression...which it hasn't been very successful at in the long run anyway).
While agreeing that religion is a main problem in that it tends to give a great deal of validation to acts of between-group violence, I have, on the other hand, agreed that human instincts (jealousy and greed in particular) are so strong that aggression and conflict would diminish somewhat, but not greatly. Nevertheless, i disagree with those trying to suggest that the ability of others apes to understand the issue of aggression and repression is anything near the level found in humans, and I think that continuing to contest this point is rather irrelevant.
I've already responded to your post #231, and I fail to see how it relates your remarks to the OP or any sub issue, so don't see the point in mentioning it again.
I am not in the habit of responding to bare links, that is, ones not accompanied by at least some explanation from the poster. In this case you have given me a link that takes me to 13,700 links, so I have no idea what your point is, nor how it relates to the OP or recent discussion, and have no intention of reading all these links and taking a guess at what your point is.0
^ Well, Spinoza, Einstein and a host of others have also done so...i.e equated god to nature.
Spinoza, whom Einstein references and largely agrees with, lived in a time where it was virtually unthinkable to entertain notions about the ultimate nature of the universe without mentioning religion, even if it was to dismiss it, or perhaps, more to the point, redefine its terms.
Similarly, Einstein was speaking metaphorpically, perhaps to try to relate his ideas to the public, as he was wont to do (e.g., his disagreements with Bohr about causality). However, he was quite aware that his use of the term sparked a lot of controversy, and indeed may assumed that he was affirming the existence of a personal or Christian or Jewish God. Therefore, he had to do a lot of backtracking and bravely stated that he believed no such thing, but was merely expressing his awe about the universe.
Similarly, Jefferson used religious terminology in the Dec of Ind., and again, there are those who use words that were meant in a deistic/metaphorical sense to claim that Jefferson believed to the usual Christian deity, which he did not. Again, Jefferson learned that he needed to be careful as to how he used the term "God." Similar remarks apply to George Washington.
Bottom line is that scientists have made the mistake of tossing the word "God" around lightly when discussing various issues, but I think that it is gradually dawning on people that it is not the best term to use, given its wide range of connotations.0
"Before" (in the current model) is a meaningless word. Well, yes, that was my point. My main query was whether you were trying to have your cake and eat it too; that is, agree with the current model, and claim that the universe was infinitely old as well.
And, while the idea of an infinitely old universe is currently hypothetical, it is solidly based in science and is not "metaphysical speculation".
But again, care to give me a few links that I might chew on, as I am not aware of the math, apart, as I mentioned, talk of a multiverse...but again, that theory would hardly be evidence for our universe being infinitely old.0
I am familiar with this point of view and there is plenty of merit in it...not that I necessarily buy into it. It stems from broader pantheism and the rationale behind it is that energy is the universal constant (omnipresent), it is part and parcel of everything that exist within the universe (in one form or another), it sustains life (and thus "consciousness") and it can be argued to be the first cause and the last effect as (most importantly), in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics, it cannot be created nor destroyed. This kind of god concept should not be confused with an anthropomorphic deity; it is just an abstract entity...that does not rely on worshipping or that gets "personally" involved.
So yes, that was my point in my post too....Why use the word "God" at all if one is trying to present some sort of broad pantheism of some sort, as one gets the impression that the issue is either going to be confusing and/or is an attempt to eventually addon anthropomorphic qualities to said God.0
The great apes have been shown to have a similar sense of fairness/reciprocity (morals) to humans and whilst they can't talk, they do communicate (body language) in order repress their aggressive instincts.
Um, depends what you mean by "similar." Apes have been known to eat similar food, experience jealousy, etc. Indeed, there are fish who can have a wingman serve as lookout while they move in on some other fishes mate.
IBut again, my own claim is that other apes don't have anything that is even in the same ballpark with regards to humans and the degree of complexity that they have with regards to ethics and the modification and repression of behavior. I might point out the intricacies of passing the bar exam, or refer you to any State's extensive Laws and Bylaws, but okay, what have you got in the way of evidence regarding an apes sense of fairness or the repression of their aggressive instincts, except, perhaps to flex their muscles and bare their teeth.
And, if you don't mind, please explain how their having rudimentary body language, etc. is relevant to the OP.
When has this been suggested?
Even in your recent post you bring up the issue: "it's all too easy for us to assume intellectual superiority"0
I don't think you'll find many scientists that think it just 'popped' into existence. Consider this: if the whole universe turns out be infinite in extent then it couldn't have done that in a finite amount of time; it had to have always been around.
"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded" - Terry Pratchett. Faintly ridiculous, don't you think? Unless there's an extant creator.
Well I think that the majority accept the Big Bang model. Sure research is being done with regards to the Higgs Boson field, etc., but I don't think anyone is really speculating that there was anything before the Big Bang. Of course, one does not necessarily hear the phrase "popping out ex nihilo" in this regard, but I don't think that there are widespread claims that the universe must have existed in some form before the Big Bang. If so, I am certainly willing to look at quotes you might provide.
Of course, there is the multiverse theory based on math speculation....but again, whatever might exist as a backdrop to the universes that arise out of them is an unknown, and certainly, even if we had some inkling about what such a backdrop might be, there is no reason we should think that it resembles the universe as we know it to such an extent that we could reasonably claim that the universe was always existed, perhaps back into infinity (which is also just metaphysical speculation).
I presume that you know far more than me about physics, but I think that you are "winging it" here for some reason.0
Neither did you, yes you know about these things but it's all too easy for us to assume intellectual superiority whilst not understanding any of it. For instance I know how to use a computer and I know the underlying principles of how it works but I don't understand it well enough to build one from scratch, knowledge doesn't automatically result in understanding.
All of the trappings and trinkets of our modern world doesn't make us smarter than the humans of, say, 2,000 years ago and just because we don't understand what they wrote down in a book doesn't mean they didn't nor does it mean we can't.
If I may comment, I agree that my android, complete with Google search engine, is not the product of one person. I agree that humans pretty much looked like and had similar native intelligence to some herdsman 3000 years or ago, or 50,000 or more for that matter.
But the point is that a group of humans literally went from killing animals with a bone (as 2000 Space Odyssey so dramatically portrays) to mass producing iphones in a couple of thousand years. Indeed, a group of humans went from riding on horseback and floating in wooden boats to flying in a Concord in less than a century. What is really amazing is that we can raise the average newborn baby, who knows about as much about the world as a newborn chimp, and have him/her speaking and arguing about issues in several languages, as well as understanding the importance of following hundreds of complex rules of polite social behavior in a half dozen years. We can't do anything remotely like that with a newborn chimp or any other animal.
Chimps have been having tribal wars for thousands of years and still use the same ole tactics of, for instance, routinely stabbing baby chimps with knives made with tree branches sharpened by their teeth. And again, no animal other than humans can string together a bunch of words to make a single sentence (though rumor has it that if you put a bunch of chimps in a room with typewriters and leave them there long enough, that they will eventually type Shakespeare's Play Hamlet!!).........My point being that, despite this issue not being frequently anchored to the OP, the question of chimps or gorillas having the same intelligence, or, more specifically, moral and linguistic capability to repress or modify their aggressive instincts in anything remotely resembling what humans are obviously capable of is not defensible.0
There are various models that involve an infinitely old universe.
Hard to trace back causality infinitely. Um...sounds like a case for detective Zeno.0
Some people believe God is energy. It created the universe and it lives within us. Do you believe in this? If so.....
Well you have defined your use of the word "energy." Now maybe you might go back and define the word "God" as you are using it in your question as to whether your reader believes that a God with energy created the universe and lives within us, as you say.
For that matter, you might also define your use of the phrase "lives within us." And indeed, to whom are you referring when you say us....Does that include rabbits, hamsters, and algae? If so, are you excluding inanimate things, or do chairs and chariots included in the term "us"?
And does this God have self-awareness. And where did the putative God come from, and how old is he/she/it, and does he have any siblings or soul mates?
And can you find another term besides "God" as that term seems to be taken by a number of religions who wish to suggest that he takes a concern and part in the affairs of people....or does your God do that too?0
I think we have mentioned before the universe has likely always been around in some form/s.
That may have been mentioned, but I hardly think that this claim is part of any contemporary standard model of the universe.
But am curious....What might the form of the universe have been like pre-Big Bang....say, 100 billion years ago (if we can talk about time pre-Big Bang at all) . Or are we talking about some other model re the origins of the universe?0
Can you give some examples of how cats can be selfish?
Well, I don't think that many people would care all that much how high a cat (or other pet) would rate on some sort of kindness/empathy test that both humans and pets might take. I do agree that many people focus on their pet because they feel that the pet is a source of unconditional affection (I hesitate to bring the word "love" into the discussion.)
But as I mentioned, simply from a emotional, moral, or intellectual quotient (in comparison with humans), animals don't really even understand the concept of kindness, much less struggle over ethical dilemmas as, say, Hamlet was portrayed as doing.
Indeed, empathy and kindness pretty much require the ability to identify with another creature. If I am in the dumps because I am going through a divorce or in agony because I burnt my hand on the stove, I don't think my cat can identify with my suffering, or care that much even if he could. Also, I am sure if there was a shortage of food in the house in the middle of a blizzard, and all that was left were cans of cat food that I could eat, unlike my friends (who admittedly can be a bit unkind and unpleasant at times), my cat neither realizes that I need his food to live, nor, if he did, would care two hoots....he would just go ahead an pig out (no offense meant to pigs...just a manner of speech).
But yes, often what people see as affection is learned behavior for their own benefit, and is rather fake and false. Certainly this could apply to both pets and people. In business circles, this is referred to as schmoozing. Indeed, once the initial glow wears off, the looks fade, and the bank account bottoms out, many a person is quick to seek divorce and look elsewhere, and what seemed like eternal and deep love goes out the window. As far as science is concerned, concepts such as actual unselfishness and even free will are on thin ice.
In any case, I would agree with those who point out that the affection most people receive from pets is quite shallow and based on the pets instincts for security, protection, physical contact, food, and nothing more. The problem I have with many pets and animals in this regard is that they will bond with anything that walks like a duck (or whatever) or has a pair or more of milk producing ducts, as many a YouTube video will show you these days. When it comes to affection, I prefer mine to be served with a bit of intellectual awareness on the part of all concerned, not just some basic animal instinct.0
Hmm I always thought women are by nature monogamous because of the hardship of pregnancy. During the time that they are pregnant, they need someone they can rely on to provide for them. And later on, someone who will help with raising children. So they need someone who will stick to them in the long run and this is also a reason why women are pickier when choosing a mate. Men on the other side, their main concern is spreading their seeds. But of course, humans have evolved and we are now smart enough to know that we have free will and we don't have to act by instinct.
And since some women today don't even want children, have financial independence, and want to just focus in their career, women who are cheating or who practice polygamy have risen.
Well, yes, there are a lot of so-called explanations for the alleged greater monogamous nature and/or weaker sex drive of women in comparison with men, and many of them seem logical enough on the surface.
My contention (widely held nowadays) is that there is not a significant difference between men and women in this regard. (For one thing, from a physiological standpoint, the sex organs are homologous.)
Thus, when it comes to forming (monogamous) relationships and/or having children, men two seem to be able to down shift gears (from a more hyper and polygamous state when not in the mindset of settling down:
"Results revealed that men in committed, romantic relationships had 21% lower testosterone levels than men not involved in such relationships."
"Although testosterone naturally decreases with age, men who became fathers showed much greater declines, more than double that of the childless men." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/health/research/13testosterone.html?_r=0
It would appear that throughout history, men have a vested interest in claiming that women are and should be monogamous.
Part of this claim is based on the idea that, unlike men, women have a weaker sex drive, and are more focused on the loving aspect of a relationship (e.g., loving their children and their husband...something that, unlike physical attraction, is supposed to last a lifetime). On the other hand, it is presumed that it is only natural that men are far more interested in spreading their seed, having as many children as possible, etc. Indeed, even evolutionary psychologists tend to argue along these lines. However, actual physiological studies suggest that both men and women seen to be into serial monogamy (as a general statement), both have similar/equal sex drives, and both seem to have moods/cycles/contexts in which they take a rather polygamous approach to relationships (aka, play the field, have casual affairs) and moods/cycles/contexts in which they take a more monogamous approach (aka, settle down).0
Apparently there are explanations of the twin travel thought experiment (e.g., see wiki) that do not require the notion of acceleration as a key factor
Indeed, I recall reading somewhere that Einstein did not use the notion of acceleration with regards to time dilation in his paper on SR. I only see a discussion of "acceleration" in section 10 regarding the "Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron," which I gather was his original paper on SR.
In any case, if time dilation in the story of twin travel can be resolved without discussing acceleration, then it would seem that the Equivalence Principle, (which I gather focuses on the similarity between acceleration in the twin travel story and what one might call the "simulated acceleration" of gravity) is not needed in an explanation of time dilation with respect to gravity.
Indeed, there seems to be both apparent time dilation based on observation as well as real time dilation (slowing of aging process) when it comes to the twin story, while, on the other hand, there is no apparent time dilation based on observation.
In short, I wonder just how similar the time dilation associated with twin travel is with respect to the time dilation associated with gravity. (Indeed, I don't even see any form of the word "dilate" in Einsteins original paper, though I presume that it is implied somewhere in the formulas.)0
Universal 'Now' at Time-Zero
Good pdf resources are great, but a couple of links (see above) did not work.