[_] HP Labs Bristol Science Lecture
s'unya
sunya.dickman at gmail.com
Fri Sep 1 12:34:40 BST 2006
Hey, thanks for having this conversation... it's really stimulating.
<snip>
Not the philosophy I've been reading... not even Wittgenstein. But then I'm
not particularly well-read :)
</snip>
Witgenstein observed that once a concept had been created, it was not
possible to un-create it... which equates to physics observation about
energy/matter.... or the social: the king is dead, long live the king....
I just can't stand by and listen to a discussion about the nature of
> science and religion without sticking my singularly uninformed oar
> in. :)
welcome to the club, it's cozy in here.
The problem with science, is scientists. As far as I can tell,
> scientists as a whole are as vicious and subjective as the average
> theologian, which is part of the reason I never pursued a course in
> science.
fair enough. I was thinking of a hypothetical situation in which an ID
protagonist and a scientist were placed on oath and asked whether their
ontology was the 'truth', one should say yes and one should say no. I
suspect both would say yes, simply because the scientist would think of all
the working theories having real and practical use... nevertheless many of
those theories have been disproved (look at newtonian gravity with which we
calculate space flight) despite the fact that they can still be used
practically. On top of which, in science, as much as anywhere else, people
more easily accept ideas that fit comfortably into their own.
However, it's perfectly possible to be a good scientist AND be
> religious. My view is that if there is/was a god, and I were that
> god, then I'd be far happier coming up with a neat labour-saving hack
> like evolution and the hypothetical Genetic Algorithm-style
> multiuniverse model (ie. building a mechanism for trying out all
> possible permutations and combinations of constants until one works),
> than having to micromanage each sodding event that happens since I
> pressed the "Play" button.
Why you programmer you ;p...Could I suggest that
omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient makes the idea of labour and
micromanagement into nothing (ie god is everything and is self-aware)....
that is the point with absolutes, they render everything meaningless.
>
> All we can do is try to understand and interpret the universe as best
> we can, and that's what science is for. It doesn't EXCLUDE faith and
> religion in the slightest. As far as I can see, science and religion
> don't overlap AT ALL.
Hmm, I disagree. In my less than perfect opinion, they are coming to more
and more overlap. Quite apart from the theory=truth equivalent I was ranting
about, for example the latest space/time concept, which stipulates that
particles are votices in the space/time fabric (hence that everything is
space/time) (incidentally I'm told that this is the only testable
cosmology... i mean theory of everything that science has created...) is
fascinatingly similar to the buddhist idea of sunyata (which means something
like the 'void of everything') to describe the universe - the general
concept can be approached (but I can't pretend to be doing a good job of it)
by trying to understand, for example everything that led to you being where
you are right now... just take one small thing, the paint of the keyboard
letters, and trace back (theoretically here) taking into acount the machiery
for mixing the paint, the trucks for transporting, the fuel, the people,
their parent's parents, the elements that made up their houses etc etc the
point being that you almost immediately end up looking at an infinite field
of interrelation...which, the buddhists suggest, means that one can't really
focus on any one thing without having to be aware of every other thing (fire
cannot exist out of the context of air, wood etc), which leaves you with an
indistinct void of everything... or indeed, the omnipotent/omnipresent gods
I guess... if you believe that that void has sentience.
I would argue that there are tons of paralels between the theories... Tom is
right that there are open minded scientists and open minded religious
thinkers, all of whom appear to be trying to understand the phenomena of the
universe around them... when these people start saying that theirs is the
'only' way of looking at things, no matter what the discipline, you have a
fundamentalism/ an absolute, which, as I observed earlier makes a mockery.
I feel I should now apologise to you all for foisting my 1800p on you. Sorry
--
o
o o
O O O
o 0 O s´unya O 0 o
www.the-resort.com
<snip>
Not the philosophy I've been reading... not even Wittgenstein. But then I'm
not particularly well-read :)
</snip>
Witgenstein observed that once a concept had been created, it was not
possible to un-create it... which equates to physics observation about
energy/matter.... or the social: the king is dead, long live the king....
I just can't stand by and listen to a discussion about the nature of
> science and religion without sticking my singularly uninformed oar
> in. :)
welcome to the club, it's cozy in here.
The problem with science, is scientists. As far as I can tell,
> scientists as a whole are as vicious and subjective as the average
> theologian, which is part of the reason I never pursued a course in
> science.
fair enough. I was thinking of a hypothetical situation in which an ID
protagonist and a scientist were placed on oath and asked whether their
ontology was the 'truth', one should say yes and one should say no. I
suspect both would say yes, simply because the scientist would think of all
the working theories having real and practical use... nevertheless many of
those theories have been disproved (look at newtonian gravity with which we
calculate space flight) despite the fact that they can still be used
practically. On top of which, in science, as much as anywhere else, people
more easily accept ideas that fit comfortably into their own.
However, it's perfectly possible to be a good scientist AND be
> religious. My view is that if there is/was a god, and I were that
> god, then I'd be far happier coming up with a neat labour-saving hack
> like evolution and the hypothetical Genetic Algorithm-style
> multiuniverse model (ie. building a mechanism for trying out all
> possible permutations and combinations of constants until one works),
> than having to micromanage each sodding event that happens since I
> pressed the "Play" button.
Why you programmer you ;p...Could I suggest that
omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient makes the idea of labour and
micromanagement into nothing (ie god is everything and is self-aware)....
that is the point with absolutes, they render everything meaningless.
>
> All we can do is try to understand and interpret the universe as best
> we can, and that's what science is for. It doesn't EXCLUDE faith and
> religion in the slightest. As far as I can see, science and religion
> don't overlap AT ALL.
Hmm, I disagree. In my less than perfect opinion, they are coming to more
and more overlap. Quite apart from the theory=truth equivalent I was ranting
about, for example the latest space/time concept, which stipulates that
particles are votices in the space/time fabric (hence that everything is
space/time) (incidentally I'm told that this is the only testable
cosmology... i mean theory of everything that science has created...) is
fascinatingly similar to the buddhist idea of sunyata (which means something
like the 'void of everything') to describe the universe - the general
concept can be approached (but I can't pretend to be doing a good job of it)
by trying to understand, for example everything that led to you being where
you are right now... just take one small thing, the paint of the keyboard
letters, and trace back (theoretically here) taking into acount the machiery
for mixing the paint, the trucks for transporting, the fuel, the people,
their parent's parents, the elements that made up their houses etc etc the
point being that you almost immediately end up looking at an infinite field
of interrelation...which, the buddhists suggest, means that one can't really
focus on any one thing without having to be aware of every other thing (fire
cannot exist out of the context of air, wood etc), which leaves you with an
indistinct void of everything... or indeed, the omnipotent/omnipresent gods
I guess... if you believe that that void has sentience.
I would argue that there are tons of paralels between the theories... Tom is
right that there are open minded scientists and open minded religious
thinkers, all of whom appear to be trying to understand the phenomena of the
universe around them... when these people start saying that theirs is the
'only' way of looking at things, no matter what the discipline, you have a
fundamentalism/ an absolute, which, as I observed earlier makes a mockery.
I feel I should now apologise to you all for foisting my 1800p on you. Sorry
--
o
o o
O O O
o 0 O s´unya O 0 o
www.the-resort.com