On today’s edition of “Meet the Press,” during which time Colin Powell dealt a body blow to the McCain campaign by endorsing Barack Obama, Powell made a brilliant observation that, frankly, I wish had occurred to me.
He commented on how people in the GOP party (he wasn’t talking about McCain per se, but the party in general) kept accusing Obama of being a Muslim. And he said the first and obvious answer is that Obama is a Christian and always has been. But the better and more appropriate answer should be–so what if he were? Why should some seven year old American kid who aspires to be president and happens to be Muslim be receiving the message that, because of his religion, he can forget about it? And Powell went on to describe a photograph he saw of a military grave with a mourning mother, and there wasn’t a cross or a star of David on the soldier’s tombstone, but instead the crescent of the Muslim. What does it say about this country, Powell wondered, that that kind of message is being sent out? That young Muslims can fight and die for this country but never be involved in running it.
It’s even more striking when one considers that back in 1960, JFK being Catholic was a HUGE deal because people contended that a Catholic shouldn’t be president because he’d be taking marching orders from the Vatican. One only hopes that forty years from now we’ll look back on the notion that a Muslim can never be president with the same “isn’t that a silly idea” attitude that we now look back on the thought that a Catholic–or for that matter, a black man–couldn’t ever be President.
PAD
• 
Like Time Lynch I also consider Rudy’s assumptions about atheists moral stance to be offensive. I have met few people as rigid and staunch in their moral principles, so willing to go the extra mile and suffer the consecuences for sticking to what they think is right than my father, who happens to be an atheist. On the other hand, principles based solely on religious dogma are easier to circumnavigate, since most people stick simply to the letter and not the spirit of the norm.
I used to work in muslins.
The I got moved to hardwares.
I used to work in muslins.
The I got moved to hardwares.
“And as an atheist, I am telling you that you are flatly incorrect, and in a decidedly offensive way to boot.
Kindly stop telling me what I believe. You do not have the grounds to do so, particularly coming from what is pretty clearly a dámņëd uninformed opinion.”
“Like Time Lynch I also consider Rudy’s assumptions about atheists moral stance to be offensive”
Alright. I am simply trying to have nice logical interchange here. No one is telling you what you believe or saying all atheists are alike. If you think that every atheist has to be consulted prior to having a discussion about the belief system of atheism, then no one would be able to talk about atheism ever. You’re going to have stop every philosophy 101 class in the country.
That being said, there are some broad brushes that can be painted regarding Atheism. I would say number one on the list is that atheist’s do not believe in the supernatural. Morality for the atheist is a human contruct that can be said to have been developed from different areas (society, biochemical/gentic/herd instinct, survival of the fittest, so on and so forth), but the bottom line is that it is contructed by man (or mankind depending on who you talk to).
In contrast to this is the Theist who believes that there is something ( speaking in general terms) beyond the scope of nature, and that morality is derived from the supernatural. If atheism is true than morality is simply a preference (however it is derived). If Theism is true than morality cannot be altered by mankind.
In fact some of the more intellectually honest atheists will tell you that the only way you and I can have free will is if there really is a God. True atheism denies your ability to alter the choices you make or the thoughts you think.
“And as an atheist, I am telling you that you are flatly incorrect, and in a decidedly offensive way to boot.
Kindly stop telling me what I believe. You do not have the grounds to do so, particularly coming from what is pretty clearly a dámņëd uninformed opinion.”
“Like Time Lynch I also consider Rudy’s assumptions about atheists moral stance to be offensive”
Alright. I am simply trying to have nice logical interchange here. No one is telling you what you believe or saying all atheists are alike. If you think that every atheist has to be consulted prior to having a discussion about the belief system of atheism, then no one would be able to talk about atheism ever. You’re going to have stop every philosophy 101 class in the country.
That being said, there are some broad brushes that can be painted regarding Atheism. I would say number one on the list is that atheist’s do not believe in the supernatural. Morality for the atheist is a human contruct that can be said to have been developed from different areas (society, biochemical/gentic/herd instinct, survival of the fittest, so on and so forth), but the bottom line is that it is contructed by man (or mankind depending on who you talk to).
In contrast to this is the Theist who believes that there is something ( speaking in general terms) beyond the scope of nature, and that morality is derived from the supernatural. If atheism is true than morality is simply a preference (however it is derived). If Theism is true than morality cannot be altered by mankind.
In fact some of the more intellectually honest atheists will tell you that the only way you and I can have free will is if there really is a God. True atheism denies your ability to alter the choices you make or the thoughts you think.
First atheism makes morality a preference, then atheism denies free will? What the hëll, buddy? It’s one or the other, don’t you think? If true atheism denies your ability to alter your choices, then how can it make morality simply a preference?
Not that I’m an atheist or anything. In fact, it makes me depressed that on one side you have people who believe there is only physical matter, and on the other side you have a bunch of religions that believe in a psychopathic God that burns the “evil” forever and rewards the “good” with eternal boredom.
It sucks, man.
First atheism makes morality a preference, then atheism denies free will? What the hëll, buddy? It’s one or the other, don’t you think? If true atheism denies your ability to alter your choices, then how can it make morality simply a preference?
Not that I’m an atheist or anything. In fact, it makes me depressed that on one side you have people who believe there is only physical matter, and on the other side you have a bunch of religions that believe in a psychopathic God that burns the “evil” forever and rewards the “good” with eternal boredom.
It sucks, man.
“In fact some of the more intellectually honest atheists will tell you that the only way you and I can have free will is if there really is a God.”
Wow… That’s… interesting.
Your point of view is that only the really intellectually honest people who believe that they have free will and don’t believe in God will tell you that you can only have free will if there is a God.
Oooooooookay.
I think he’s saying that an intellectually honest atheist would have to deny that free will is possible. I’d like to hear more about that idea because on the face of it I don’t see why that should be so. Why would an atheist be unable to alter the choices they make or the thoughts they think???
“First atheism makes morality a preference, then atheism denies free will? What the hëll, buddy?”
Oh, its actually an interesting argument. I will do my best to summarize the main points: Basically, as the argument goes, the choices we make and our very thoughts are all determined by our brain’s biochemistry, the brain’s biochemistry is a result of the interaction of our genetics and environmental factors, our gentics and the environmental factors our themselves determined by a myriad of consequences that can be traced all the way back to the big bang. So, if one were to know all the variables from a cosmic/macroscopic level down to the microscopic level, nothing is left to chance and everything is predetermined. We are simply part of a large cosmic equation. Of course this theory has its criticisms (e.g.it seems counter intuitive to our experience of being human, why bother arguing with people, how do we know our thoughts are truly rationale?, ). It has been an argument of pure naturalists for a long time, the most well known modern proponent that I can think of is Prof. William Provine at Cornell.
Because of the above listed criticisms it can be argued that there is something about mankind that allows him/her to, in a way, rise above nature, and exert some form of will over the natural world. Whatever that something is it would have to be called Super-natural (since by definition it can redirect/exert influence over the natural world and is not necessarily subject to it), and since it happens on an everyday/second/moment basis we don’t seem to realize the significance of it. Sort of like the saying that if humans were fish the last thing we would discover would be water. And if we can determine that there is something supernatural, what else might we find? Everyone have a nice weekend.
“First atheism makes morality a preference, then atheism denies free will? What the hëll, buddy?”
Oh, its actually an interesting argument. I will do my best to summarize the main points: Basically, as the argument goes, the choices we make and our very thoughts are all determined by our brain’s biochemistry, the brain’s biochemistry is a result of the interaction of our genetics and environmental factors, our gentics and the environmental factors our themselves determined by a myriad of consequences that can be traced all the way back to the big bang. So, if one were to know all the variables from a cosmic/macroscopic level down to the microscopic level, nothing is left to chance and everything is predetermined. We are simply part of a large cosmic equation. Of course this theory has its criticisms (e.g.it seems counter intuitive to our experience of being human, why bother arguing with people, how do we know our thoughts are truly rationale?, ). It has been an argument of pure naturalists for a long time, the most well known modern proponent that I can think of is Prof. William Provine at Cornell.
Because of the above listed criticisms it can be argued that there is something about mankind that allows him/her to, in a way, rise above nature, and exert some form of will over the natural world. Whatever that something is it would have to be called Super-natural (since by definition it can redirect/exert influence over the natural world and is not necessarily subject to it), and since it happens on an everyday/second/moment basis we don’t seem to realize the significance of it. Sort of like the saying that if humans were fish the last thing we would discover would be water. And if we can determine that there is something supernatural, what else might we find? Everyone have a nice weekend.
“I think he’s saying that an intellectually honest atheist would have to deny that free will is possible. I’d like to hear more about that idea because on the face of it I don’t see why that should be so.”
I’m not even sure how that would work though. If you believe that there is no God then you are living in a world without all of the clichéd afterlife rewards and punishments. You’re making choices based on more of a freedom of choice scenario than someone who believes that they have to act a certain way or they’ll spend eternity watching Satan and Saddam having their domestic squabbles without the charm and humor that Parker and Stone gave it. Also, it’s usually in the God believing (or deity believing) circles that you find the belief that everything is laid out for us and that our paths from birth to death are set in stone from since before mankind was born.
It’s the extreme version of “God has a plan for all of us.” It’s just that here you have the plan as tightly plotted and micromanaged as can be. I’ve never met any atheists who subscribed to any such belief or anything like that (and very much the opposite of that actually) so I can’t wrap my head around what Rudy is trying to say there. Right now it comes off like someone saying that anyone who is honest will tell you that the red crayon is actually green and that’s what makes it red.
It’s a fun theory to bat around over a beer or two, Rudy, but it’s way too weak to be making a sweeping generalization with it. But that’s a little weak for supporting the idea that some of the more intellectually honest atheists will tell you that the only way you and I can have free will is if there really is a God. As I pointed out above; there are schools of thought in Christianity that say that mankind is moving along a path that is predetermined by the creator. They say that God has a plan and that our every action and thought are predetermined parts of this designed to carry out God’s plan and complete his grand design. The idea behind it is that there is no free will. We are simply going through the motions in God’s master screenplay.
Based on that, it can be claimed that in fact some of the more intellectually honest Christians would admit that the belief in the existence of God proves that free will is just an illusion. I wouldn’t claim it, but I wouldn’t claim the reverse as you did either.
Further, Rudy, such determinism ignores quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and the famed Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in their entirety (entireties?). Basically, you cannot know all the variables – some of them truly are random, and cannot be accounted for by any predictive program. (For a crude example, one can know that by such-and-such a time, one atom of uranium in a given sample will decay – but which one? There is no way of knowing beforehand…)
Further, Rudy, such determinism ignores quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and the famed Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in their entirety (entireties?). Basically, you cannot know all the variables – some of them truly are random, and cannot be accounted for by any predictive program. (For a crude example, one can know that by such-and-such a time, one atom of uranium in a given sample will decay – but which one? There is no way of knowing beforehand…)
Pretty interesting theory, Rudy. That there is a spark of divinity and supernatural that rises above biological/social determinism. I can get behind that.
Still, for most people it doesn’t matter whether free will is real or not, as long as they perceive it as real.
“Further, Rudy, such determinism ignores quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and the famed Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in their entirety (entireties?). Basically, you cannot know all the variables – some of them truly are random, and cannot be accounted for by any predictive program. (For a crude example, one can know that by such-and-such a time, one atom of uranium will decay – but which one? There is no way of knowing beforehand…)”
The theory does not live or die based on accounting of, or controlling all variables. Basically you could narrow it down somewhat by simply saying that “choice” and “thought” are simply a matter of brain biochemistry, whether the variables can be accounted for or not, either way there is no real “freedom of thought”, what you think and do is simply a result of these factors. Of course there are forces that we, at our currently level of knowedge, cannot 100% accurately predict, so we use statistics and models to make our best guess. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t better equations out there that would lead us to better answers, it just means we don’t know what they are. Regardless, even with randomness agreed upon, it still would not change the fact the “mind” would be a product of Neurochemistry.
**In my opinion** this has to be the most honest conclusion that an atheist can come to terms with. I am not saying all atheists ascribe to this, but it has the fewest loopholes in explaining moraility and choice from an atheist’s point of view (again, in my opinion). One BIG problem with this theory, however, is that there is no gurantee of rational thought. Do you believe what you believe because it is rational or because of the electrons randomly zipping around in your brain?
If mankind is simply a product of the chain reaction of matter and energy since the Universe begun then I see no reason to believe that there is any “free will”, at best only the illusion.
Found a quote from Dr. Provine:
“Free will as traditionally conceived … simply does not exist. There is no way the evolutionary process as currently conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make choices.”
Have a nice weekend everyone.
I think the main mistake in Rudy’s reasoning is his assumption of atheists not believing in anything trascending the individual (or his neurochemical “determinism”).
Believing moral codes are a human construct does not make them more or less an elective commodity. Not any more than believing them to be a guideline from a superior beign. Still, one thing is true; you have to trascend the considerations of the individual to stick to such moral code (fear of punishment by society not included). Generosity, charity, forgiveness, heroism… are conducts that derive from the notion of common good. This notion can articulate into religious codes; romans deified Rome, not as a physical location but as the idea of common good trascending the individual. Not because they believed in a supernatural “rome” but because religion was the best way to educate large masses of people back then. Greeks myths have a similar nature. But this notion can articulate without the need of any religious feeling, tho it seems negating this possibility is a favorite when it comes to smearing atheism. “Since morals come from God/the supernatural, atheists must be inmoral. If an atheist denies this, he must be lying. We only trascend through the spiritual/supernatural”. Wich is a bit like cheapening the human experience.
I think the main mistake in Rudy’s reasoning is his assumption of atheists not believing in anything trascending the individual (or his neurochemical “determinism”).
Believing moral codes are a human construct does not make them more or less an elective commodity. Not any more than believing them to be a guideline from a superior beign. Still, one thing is true; you have to trascend the considerations of the individual to stick to such moral code (fear of punishment by society not included). Generosity, charity, forgiveness, heroism… are conducts that derive from the notion of common good. This notion can articulate into religious codes; romans deified Rome, not as a physical location but as the idea of common good trascending the individual. Not because they believed in a supernatural “rome” but because religion was the best way to educate large masses of people back then. Greeks myths have a similar nature. But this notion can articulate without the need of any religious feeling, tho it seems negating this possibility is a favorite when it comes to smearing atheism. “Since morals come from God/the supernatural, atheists must be inmoral. If an atheist denies this, he must be lying. We only trascend through the spiritual/supernatural”. Wich is a bit like cheapening the human experience.
I’m still not quite getting this. No question, our thoughts are controlled in large part by neurochemistry–this is quite easy to see by simply changing the chemistry. How you think on a few dosages of prozac may be quite different from how you would have thought stone sober.
So lets acknowledge that we “think” using chemicals. You have a choice to make. You research it and make a conclusion. The conclusion you make–the choice–may be entirely influenced by the research you do. Find good arguments for A you choose A. Have some douchebag get in your face and demand you vote for A might make you vote for B. Some random event in your life or on the way to the polling booth might switch your entire vote. Or not.
I mean, what are we talking about when we say free choice? Some random thing or something that is influenced by other things? It seems to me that you’re saying that since it is influenced it can’t be truly free. But what in the universe is not influenced by everything else in the universe?
(In a way this reminds me of a conversation I had with a very unhappy person who told me that I was not really happy…I just THOUGHT I was happy. And I wondered then as I do now…what is happiness if it isn’t feeling happy? What would feeling happy but not really being happy even be?
The danger in this kind of thinking is that it often gets used to justify destructive behavior. The old “Since there is no such thing as actual (fill in the blank) I am not to be blamed for not doing it.” idea. “Altruism is actually a form of selfishness so by being selfish I am just as good as the person who helps others. Better, actually, since at least I’m honest about it.”
Not saying you are suggesting this Rudy, quite the opposite I think, but I’m just not getting it.
If there is a God, we should consider the possibility that God’s “plan” was nothing more elaborate than to create the universe and then sit back and see what happens.
If God does exist, he/she/it does seem to be a disinterested (or at least uninvolved) bystander.
And I believe we have free will, God or no God. The kind of people we become is determined in part by both our upbringing and our environment, but the person raised in a criminal family on the proverbial wrong side of the tracks isn’t destined to become a criminal as well; and the person raised to obey and respect the law isn’t destined to become Dudley Do-Right. Despite his background, the first person might grow up to be a “model citizen”, even going as far as moving to a new town to start over, far from his family. The second might decide to rob banks rather than earn a steady paycheck. And both would make their choices of their own free will. They might feel some internal resistance to these choices, based on how they were raised, but those feelings wouldn’t necessarily stop them making those choices.
Rick
If there is a God, we should consider the possibility that God’s “plan” was nothing more elaborate than to create the universe and then sit back and see what happens.
If God does exist, he/she/it does seem to be a disinterested (or at least uninvolved) bystander.
And I believe we have free will, God or no God. The kind of people we become is determined in part by both our upbringing and our environment, but the person raised in a criminal family on the proverbial wrong side of the tracks isn’t destined to become a criminal as well; and the person raised to obey and respect the law isn’t destined to become Dudley Do-Right. Despite his background, the first person might grow up to be a “model citizen”, even going as far as moving to a new town to start over, far from his family. The second might decide to rob banks rather than earn a steady paycheck. And both would make their choices of their own free will. They might feel some internal resistance to these choices, based on how they were raised, but those feelings wouldn’t necessarily stop them making those choices.
Rick
Rudy,
Okay, let’s say that the theory has some basic merit. The big bang sent everything into motion, the world formed, life came about and everything living was and will be basically programmed by the fallout of the big bang. Let’s say that the “mind” would be a product of Neurochemistry and all of out decisions and impulses are programmed on a set path from birth to death as a result of all of that.
Okay.
Doesn’t prove that there is a God, doesn’t prove or disprove free will and it doesn’t validate you original statement. By discounting the idea of free will and the freedom to actually make choices that aren’t predetermined by God/fate/the universe you open your theory up to a hole big enough that you could sail an aircraft carrier through it.
How do you know that you yourself have any free will at all? You think you do and you think it’s given to you by a supernatural higher power, but you with your mere human perceptions and senses cannot prove that you do. You may simply be programmed by the events you described to gravitate towards, believe, support and defend the idea of a higher power. Your programming includes a more active “God Gene” than other people’s programming.
You also ignore that some religious schools of thought for centuries now have said that the existence of God or a god in and of itself denies free will. Not every Christian lives by this, but some have and do. My problem with them is much the same as the problem I have with your theory. You cannot prove/disprove the existence of free will in any meaningful way and simply state as your preface, case and closing argument that God is the reason.
It’s still a fine theory for you to have as your personal belief and to use it to bolster your beliefs, but I would hold off on making statements about how “the more intellectually honest” out there would agree with you. You are saying by logical extension of that statement that if someone doesn’t agree with you isn’t being intellectually honest with either you or themselves.
You are saying with that statement that you have a “clever theory” about religion that has no true evidence to support it, but that anyone who disagrees with you about it is wrong and/or being dishonest in some way in their disagreement of it.
Rudy,
Okay, let’s say that the theory has some basic merit. The big bang sent everything into motion, the world formed, life came about and everything living was and will be basically programmed by the fallout of the big bang. Let’s say that the “mind” would be a product of Neurochemistry and all of out decisions and impulses are programmed on a set path from birth to death as a result of all of that.
Okay.
Doesn’t prove that there is a God, doesn’t prove or disprove free will and it doesn’t validate you original statement. By discounting the idea of free will and the freedom to actually make choices that aren’t predetermined by God/fate/the universe you open your theory up to a hole big enough that you could sail an aircraft carrier through it.
How do you know that you yourself have any free will at all? You think you do and you think it’s given to you by a supernatural higher power, but you with your mere human perceptions and senses cannot prove that you do. You may simply be programmed by the events you described to gravitate towards, believe, support and defend the idea of a higher power. Your programming includes a more active “God Gene” than other people’s programming.
You also ignore that some religious schools of thought for centuries now have said that the existence of God or a god in and of itself denies free will. Not every Christian lives by this, but some have and do. My problem with them is much the same as the problem I have with your theory. You cannot prove/disprove the existence of free will in any meaningful way and simply state as your preface, case and closing argument that God is the reason.
It’s still a fine theory for you to have as your personal belief and to use it to bolster your beliefs, but I would hold off on making statements about how “the more intellectually honest” out there would agree with you. You are saying by logical extension of that statement that if someone doesn’t agree with you isn’t being intellectually honest with either you or themselves.
You are saying with that statement that you have a “clever theory” about religion that has no true evidence to support it, but that anyone who disagrees with you about it is wrong and/or being dishonest in some way in their disagreement of it.
Jerry, the question of causal determinism and free will is a pretty big philosophical question to which they offered different attempted answers, theistic and atheistic, only one of which is denial of free choice. I took a peek at the Stanford Encyclopdia of Philosophy, but didn’t have the time to go over all the long and very technical entries on the subject. In any case, like a lot of philosophical issues that consume the time of philosophy professors around the world, it has very little to do with the real life of most people, atheists or otherwise. [not to be confused with the real world discussion about responsibility that has been troubling people in recent years]. Moreover, the question of determinism and free will has troubled both deist and atheist philosphers.
In any case, what Rudy did, was offer an easy religious answer to a difficult philosophical question. Talk about Deus Ex Machina. Solve the problem by inserting an even more problematic and harder to explain philosophical question, that doresn’t really solve the problem, namely god. Although, in all fairness, others have done it before.
Rudy does the same thing with the old ‘atheism is immoral/morally relativistic’ kind of argument that we’ve already covered before. As we all know, atheists usually have moral codes, only a few are actually moral relativists. As we also know, atheists who actually bothered to articulate a not supernatural basis to their morality have done so in a variety of ways, which are also the usually the province of philosophy departments. However, certain deists, like Rudy, choose to simply dismiss the morality of atheism as non existent simply because it does not have the god label of approval. They pretend that unlike atheistic morality, deist morality is sdomehow grounded and unchanging.
“The morality of atheism is more pragmatic, adopting whatever morality will get them to where they want to go. The morality of atheism can change depending on the times and circumstances. The morality of the big three is not dependent on time or circumstances and is unchanging.”
This is laughable both philosophically and historically. Philosophically, because obviously religious morality, just llike atheistic morality is subject to choice and interpretation by humans. Historically, because as we all know, religions changed and adapted many times, quite pragmatically, as attitudes and circumstances changed.
So basically, in a competition between a system of morality grounded in humanity and one grounded on the changing traditions of certain particular groups of ancient peoples about a philosophically questionable entity, somehow the latter is more reliable and more stable than the former. Does that seem to make sense? Well, of course, because it has the God label of approval. But who exactly issues that label? Obviously, when the label is issued by good religious humans we have people like Martin luteher King, and when it is issued by bad people we have al-Quaida.
Rene: “In fact, it makes me depressed that on one side you have people who believe there is only physical matter, and on the other side you have a bunch of religions that believe in a psychopathic God that burns the “evil” forever and rewards the “good” with eternal boredom.”
Don’t depress yourself needlessly. Not all religions are the same, and not all non-religious morality holds to extreme materialism. That’s just another one of the false accusations leveled against atheists by certain deists. Viewing the world as ‘only matter’ might be true of some atheists who are also extreme materialists. But you can be atheist without being that committed to materialism. After all, god or no god, the world of the human mind is undeniable (except by very extreme materialist philosophers).
So what if morality is a construct? Are you under the impression you can spend a day without something made by people? One day without clothing or food that wasn’t passed to you only by hand or without speaking to anyone? Are you posting here on a computer that grew from a tree?
You refer to artifacts as anathemas. All the “intellectual honesty” you claim loyalty to allows for is that you hate people. Why should anyone who considers himself a person care what you believe?
And so what if someone has to reconcile the absence of free will with their experiences? What is the urgency for anyone else to hold your particular beliefs?
So what if morality is a construct? Are you under the impression you can spend a day without something made by people? One day without clothing or food that wasn’t passed to you only by hand or without speaking to anyone? Are you posting here on a computer that grew from a tree?
You refer to artifacts as anathemas. All the “intellectual honesty” you claim loyalty to allows for is that you hate people. Why should anyone who considers himself a person care what you believe?
And so what if someone has to reconcile the absence of free will with their experiences? What is the urgency for anyone else to hold your particular beliefs?
In fact some of the more intellectually honest atheists will tell you that the only way you and I can have free will is if there really is a God.
Oh, goody. Not only do I not have a clear moral code, but I’m also intellectually dishonest about it.
Rudy, after reading everything you’ve written in the past 36 hours I don’t think you’re really TRYING to be offensive here — I just think you haven’t clue one how atheists actually think and (dare I say it? dare, dare) reason.
Whether you’re being intentionally offensive or just massively misguided, however, with first-quarter grades due in a week I haven’t the time to properly get involved in the discussion. Maybe another time — for now, have a nice life, even if you clearly don’t feel the same way towards me.
Tim, you refuse to waive the privilege to swear at someone for being, by even your own account, right. There’s no moral standing for reserving for yourself that kind of privilege.
Tim, you refuse to waive the privilege to swear at someone for being, by even your own account, right. There’s no moral standing for reserving for yourself that kind of privilege.
The big bang sent everything into motion, the world formed, life came about and everything living was and will be basically programmed by the fallout of the big bang.
That reminds me of a question–suppose that eventually, long after we are all gone, the universe stops expanding and collapses back into the singularity from whence it came and we get another big bang.
Would it be possible that the exact same events would happen again? Which would inevitably lead to, say, me writing this post again? And this keeps going on forever and ever?
That reminds me of a question–suppose that eventually, long after we are all gone, the universe stops expanding and collapses back into the singularity from whence it came and we get another big bang.
I’ve always been partial to that option, ever since I was about ten — unfortunately, current data suggests it ain’t gonna happen.
However…
Would it be possible that the exact same events would happen again? Which would inevitably lead to, say, me writing this post again? And this keeps going on forever and ever?
The flip answer, channeling Animal House: “Can I buy some pot from you?”
The real answer:
1) We don’t understand the physics that would be in play at the singularity — it’ll be controlled by quantum gravity, which we don’t have a handle on yet. So in terms of what’s possible, it’s absolutely a “dámņëd if we know” situation.
2) My own gut feel — sure, it’s POSSIBLE, the same way that it’s possible for an egg to spontaneously unscramble. However, it’s so incredibly improbable that it’s effectively impossible.
TWL
Would it be possible that the exact same events would happen again? Which would inevitably lead to, say, me writing this post again? And this keeps going on forever and ever?
I still like Red Dwarf’s answer for that one best. Well, all except the bathroom part…
Would it be possible that the exact same events would happen again? Which would inevitably lead to, say, me writing this post again? And this keeps going on forever and ever?
I still like Red Dwarf’s answer for that one best. Well, all except the bathroom part…
Tim, that was my take on it too…if quantum physics gives any degree of randomness to the situation I figure it would only take one or two electrons spinning to the left instead of the right at an early stage to turn this whole ball of wax into the Universe Of Shrimp, or whatever.
I’ve always been partial to that option, ever since I was about ten — unfortunately, current data suggests it ain’t gonna happen.
I wouldn’t give up on the Big Crunch just yet…we are only beginning to begin to understand this stuff. Wasn’t long ago that Black holes weren’t even a theory, now they seem to be one of the Big Honking Deals in how the universe works. Who knows what else is out there waiting for us to figure it out.
And then there are the various ideas of how Universes can just sort of pop out of nothing, which means there will almost certainly be others to come…just hope they don’t pop out too close to us which most scientists agree Would Be Bad.
I don’t understand most of this, which is fine. The fundamental craziness of reality is very appealing.
(one question Tim–sorry to pester you when you’re grading but if I understand this correctly, the universe expanded to much of it’s unimaginable size in an extremely brief moment of time–would that not violate the whole idea o the speed of light being the top speed possible? Or is it that when there is no such thing as distance and time the simple calculation of Speed=distance/time no longer applies?
Bill,
Have you read Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time?”
Bill,
Have you read Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time?”
Megan–sadly and inexcusably–no.
It’s on the list though.
Megan–sadly and inexcusably–no.
It’s on the list though.
Bill Mulligan: “(one question Tim–sorry to pester you when you’re grading but if I understand this correctly, the universe expanded to much of it’s unimaginable size in an extremely brief moment of time–would that not violate the whole idea o the speed of light being the top speed possible? Or is it that when there is no such thing as distance and time the simple calculation of Speed=distance/time no longer applies?”
Jeez… The sheer number of variables in that question would make an old friend of mine giddy happy with anticipation of getting home and writing a paper on it. Yes, I know guys who are even geekier than I am.
Anyhow, just a few that I can think of.
Variable #1: We really have no true idea what “the void” that the Big Bang exploded in to was or what it was made of. We also don’t even know if our physical laws apply themselves to that or not. If the physical structure (maybe even down to the sub-molecular level) was different and less dense, there’s every possibility that some restrictions on the speed that physical matter could move with in our universe don’t apply there.
It could literally be the difference between trying to move an object through the air VS trying to move an object through water. Hëll, it could even make comparison like that of moving through air VS moving through solid matter.
Variable #2: What’s time when there has been no time preceding it. One of the problems that I understand presents itself when something moves faster than light is that it begins to move backwards in time. If the beginning of time in our universe was the Big Bang; how do you measure the effects of that?
Interestingly, that variable is the coolest of them all. We know that time is not constant. Time flows at different rates based on even such small things a living at sea level VS living in an extremely high mountain village. Physical bodies and their and their gravitational fields actually warp and bend time. The crushing gravitational pull of a black hole warps time to such an extreme that it looks like it’s standing still. We’re talking about an event that likely unleashed gravitational forces that must dwarf anything that we know as well as amounts of energy that most human minds likely can’t comfortably comprehend.
How would all of that force in flux effect the rules of physical and theoretical law that we have grown accustom to? If matter was created and flung out faster than the speed of light; would it actually create a situation where aspects of the universe formed before the Big Bang and actually and then helped to create a barrier, a protective skin of energy of sorts that contained, defined and protected both the universe from being invaded by the void and the void from being pushed even farther to it’s theoretical limits by an expanding universe? Would it have meant that some parts of the outer edges of the universe actually matured faster than the center of the universe? Could the variables created by high speed movements, blossoming gravitational fields and other cosmic fun have created a patchwork quilt of a universe where the origin millennia of the universe involved time itself clashing with itself to create a cohesive timeline.
Variable #3: The unknown. What we don’t know about what happened, whether it’s divine or mundane, would fill a library the size of The Library from last season’s Doctor Who two parter. The chaos and unknown that went must have been terrifying and cool as hëll all in one go.
I know that answers none of what you just asked, but the question started rolling around in my head so I figured I would just dump the randomly strewn together garbage generated by that question onto the board and add to the general confusion.
Hope I confused at least one of you.
Jerry,
You couldn’t possibly confuse me more than “Phil 400 Philosophy of Time” did.
No, it didn’t really confuse me – “A Brief History of Time” and Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose’s essays really helped.
Jerry,
You couldn’t possibly confuse me more than “Phil 400 Philosophy of Time” did.
No, it didn’t really confuse me – “A Brief History of Time” and Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose’s essays really helped.
Have you read Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History of Time?”
I have. Got the doc they did on VHS as well. Have you read his books God Created the Integers : The Mathematical Breakthroughs That Changed History (very hard to read at times) and The Theory of Everything : The Origin and Fate of the Universe (not quite as hard to read at times) yet?
No, I haven’t. Between being back at Uni studying Psychology, the family & working – I tend to run out of hours in any given day. 🙂
No, I haven’t. Between being back at Uni studying Psychology, the family & working – I tend to run out of hours in any given day. 🙂
Megan, if that’s the one where you spend an entire semester working on one major figure or problem in philosophy… I’ve never known anyone who has said they walked out of that with a better understanding of anything other than Jolt Cola and the desire to kill the person presenting the counter argument.
Megan, if that’s the one where you spend an entire semester working on one major figure or problem in philosophy… I’ve never known anyone who has said they walked out of that with a better understanding of anything other than Jolt Cola and the desire to kill the person presenting the counter argument.
Megan, if that’s the one where you spend an entire semester working on one major figure or problem in philosophy… I’ve never known anyone who has said they walked out of that with a better understanding of anything other than Jolt Cola and the desire to kill the person presenting the counter argument.
We really have no true idea what “the void” that the Big Bang exploded in to was or what it was made of.
Well, if it isn’t empty it isn’t much of a void!
But you raise a good point–there is really no such thing as an absolute void in our reality. Even in an absolute vacuum (and does that exist here?) there is the influence of gravity from every other object in the universe. So who knows what the rules would be at the moment of creation?
One of the problems that I understand presents itself when something moves faster than light is that it begins to move backwards in time.
I don’t think it moves backwards but time (for the object) slows down. But since we are now postulating faster than light travel, well, who knows? The universe could be its own grandmother.
Megan, do you find that being someone with more responsibilities than someone who is in college straight out of high school with nothing to worry about than college gives you an edge? I know that sounds counter intuitive but when I went back to school as a man or maturity it was much much easier.
We really have no true idea what “the void” that the Big Bang exploded in to was or what it was made of.
Well, if it isn’t empty it isn’t much of a void!
But you raise a good point–there is really no such thing as an absolute void in our reality. Even in an absolute vacuum (and does that exist here?) there is the influence of gravity from every other object in the universe. So who knows what the rules would be at the moment of creation?
One of the problems that I understand presents itself when something moves faster than light is that it begins to move backwards in time.
I don’t think it moves backwards but time (for the object) slows down. But since we are now postulating faster than light travel, well, who knows? The universe could be its own grandmother.
Megan, do you find that being someone with more responsibilities than someone who is in college straight out of high school with nothing to worry about than college gives you an edge? I know that sounds counter intuitive but when I went back to school as a man or maturity it was much much easier.