|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Big Slurp
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
At the current measured values for the Higgs, the best theoretical calculations suggest that the Standard Model vacuum is meta-stable. Say what? Well, this is what it means:
quote:
NBC news:
"If you use all the physics that we know now, and we do what we think is a straightforward calculation, it's bad news," Lykken said. "It may be that the universe we live in is inherently unstable. At some point, billions of years from now, it's all going to be wiped out." ... Back in 1982, physicists Michael Turner and Frank Wilczek wrote in Nature that "without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light, and before we realized what swept by us our protons would decay away." Lykken put it slightly differently: "The universe wants to be in a different state, so eventually to realize that, a little bubble of what you might think of as an alternate universe will appear somewhere, and it will spread out and destroy us."
So, the universe wants to be in a different state, a little bubble will appear somewhere, explosively expand at the speed of light, wipe out this universe, and form a new one? Did someone get a sneak peak, perhaps?
quote:
Rom 8:19-23
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
Matt 24:27-31
For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man. Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together. "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
2 Pt 7-12
But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
Well, I don't know. It's just a next-to-leading order calculation in the Standard Model, based on some data mainly from the LHC. But if the Big Slurp is indeed the Second Coming, then you heard it here first. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Interesting. But it doesn't take anything as momentous as that to bring the curtain down on life, or at least human life, as we know it.
If I understand the news correctly, a meteor merely the size of a bus caused havoc in a Russian city by just whizzing by, not even landing on the ground. Meanwhile, a much larger asteroid narrowly missed hitting the earth.
Eighteenth-century deism was inspired by the concept of a clockwork universe, according to which the orbits of planets were stable and nothing would disrupt them for eons. God created them that way, rested, and then went on a long vacation. We know now that this orderliness so hospitable to us is more of a happy accident-- or, better, the grace of God, still intimately involved, for whom the show's not over yet.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
NBC news, quoted by IngoB:
without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light
Even if it moved at the speed of light, it'd still need a lot of time to cover the Universe. We only have to worry if it starts somewhere near us. (Hmm, maybe better switch off the LHC? )
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm not sure why the little bubble would be filled with righteousness? It's a nice fantasy.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dal Segno
al Fine
# 14673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
NBC news, quoted by IngoB:
without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light
Even if it moved at the speed of light, it'd still need a lot of time to cover the Universe. We only have to worry if it starts somewhere near us. (Hmm, maybe better switch off the LHC? )
It's moving at the speed of light. You won't see it until it hits you.
--------------------
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
Posts: 1200 | From: Pacific's triple star | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
NBC news, quoted by IngoB:
without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light
Even if it moved at the speed of light, it'd still need a lot of time to cover the Universe. We only have to worry if it starts somewhere near us. (Hmm, maybe better switch off the LHC? )
It's moving at the speed of light. You won't see it until it hits you.
Oh, I don't know. It could be on it's way - try googling "Eridanus supervoid".
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alf Wiedersehen
Apprentice
# 17421
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Oh, I don't know. It could be on it's way - try googling "Eridanus supervoid".
"There is some speculation that the void may be due to quantum entanglement between our universe and another."
"Quantum entaglement"! That sounds nice. I imagine that to be like two soap bubbles bumping into one another.
Posts: 6 | From: Berlin, Germany | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So, the universe wants to be in a different state, a little bubble will appear somewhere, explosively expand at the speed of light, wipe out this universe, and form a new one? Did someone get a sneak peak, perhaps?
Perhaps several someones.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
We'll most likely be long, long gone before it happens anyway.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
What are the implications of a 'cyclical' model of the universe for the theology that posits divine creation?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What are the implications of a 'cyclical' model of the universe for the theology that posits divine creation?
Who said God could only create one universe?
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What are the implications of a 'cyclical' model of the universe for the theology that posits divine creation?
Who said God could only create one universe?
Not the Hindus.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dal Segno
al Fine
# 14673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
NBC news, quoted by IngoB:
without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light
Even if it moved at the speed of light, it'd still need a lot of time to cover the Universe. We only have to worry if it starts somewhere near us. (Hmm, maybe better switch off the LHC? )
It's moving at the speed of light. You won't see it until it hits you.
Oh, I don't know. It could be on it's way - try googling "Eridanus supervoid".
If we can see it, then it is not expanding at the speed of light.
--------------------
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
Posts: 1200 | From: Pacific's triple star | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What are the implications of a 'cyclical' model of the universe for the theology that posits divine creation?
I should think pantheistic beliefs allow for it, panentheistic beliefs may not. "Universe" is a kind of slippery world in this context. An eternal "universe" as an expression of the creative nature of an eternal God doesn't strike me as inconsistent.
Traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs posit that God made the heavens and the earth. "In the beginning God made", but that "in the beginning" (Hebrew ראשית) has this (to me at least) inference of "flowing out from the eternal). But I may be mixing up "begotten" and "made".
Yorick, I think we're compelled to struggle to make sense of these things. An eternal self-creating universe doesn't make any kind of intuitive sense to me because "there's no such thing as a free lunch". But there's more than enough evidence of the truth of the counter-intuitive in the universe we can observe to make me suspicious of that intuition!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yorick, I think we're compelled to struggle to make sense of these things.
Isn't it the case that the struggle here is simply to reconcile current scientific understanding with a primitive 'explanation' of things? Surely, it must be very hard to make recent discoveries about the universe 'fit' models of understanding held by our ancestors who were ignorant of scientific fact and perhaps more inclined to mystical and supernatural explanations.
I know this is a tired old discussion, and largely tangential here (I apologise for that), but each time we hear of new scientific knowledge it strikes me that the gulf between what we currently know and what our ancients thought they knew seems to widen. Unless you're good at forcing things straight by strenuous contortion.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
The instability won’t matter to us unless we have moved off the Earth sometime in the next 5 billion years or so. I think that is when the sun will become a red giant, and it’s diameter will encompass the Earth.
So ideally we will have moved to another planet, preferably another solar system. If not, we’ll be long gone before any instability vacuum bothers us. Our atoms will be swirling around inside a red giant, so having the protons in those atoms slapped around won’t matter a jot.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What are the implications of a 'cyclical' model of the universe for the theology that posits divine creation?
In principle, none, as you really should have learned by now. The ultimate causality of God does not require a spacetime beginning. In practice, the "Big Bang" certainly is more congenial to Christian theology, i.e., another layer of abstraction is required if there is not literal beginning.
But this thread is not about that, but about the end of this universe in the Second Coming. And about the fact that the talk about the Big Slurp sounds a lot like it (which is a bit of a whimsical point, but fun). I would have to think a bit about it, but I think the typical mechanisms proposed for cyclical universes would be wiped out by the Big Slurp as well. Then it would destroy such cyclical universes just as much as Big Bang ones, and for the purposes of the topic of this thread the only impact would be that it is a cycle (rather than an expansion) which is ended.
I also want to point out that while it sure was fun that the very first icon I saw of the Second Coming was showing something suggestive of an expanding vacuum bubble, it is not my claim that icon writers were inspired with a true picture of the Big Slurp. I was instead pointing to the talk about the Second Coming in the NT. So showing Buddhas in discs really is neither here nor there. Whereas Buddhist cosmology might be of interest. (Frankly, Buddhist cosmology gives me headaches. If you think Revelations is trippy, try reading some Mahayana sutras.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The instability won’t matter to us unless we have moved off the Earth sometime in the next 5 billion years or so. I think that is when the sun will become a red giant, and it’s diameter will encompass the Earth.
So ideally we will have moved to another planet, preferably another solar system. If not, we’ll be long gone before any instability vacuum bothers us. Our atoms will be swirling around inside a red giant, so having the protons in those atoms slapped around won’t matter a jot.
There's a very big problem with moving to another solar system. Well, actually two big problems, one physical - we don't have the time to get there - and one moral.
If there is a habitable (by us) planet out there, the speed with which our Earth became inhabited (by any life) suggests that it will already be inhabited by others. We have, perhaps, developed our understanding beyond what was held when the Europeans moved into Africa, America, and Australia, that we are entitled to take others' living space. When I was reading SF back in the 60's, this issue had already raised its head, but it bears repetition.
This place is what we've got. God alone knows what we'll be by the time of the red giant Sun.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yorick, I think we're compelled to struggle to make sense of these things.
Isn't it the case that the struggle here is simply to reconcile current scientific understanding with a primitive 'explanation' of things? Surely, it must be very hard to make recent discoveries about the universe 'fit' models of understanding held by our ancestors who were ignorant of scientific fact and perhaps more inclined to mystical and supernatural explanations.
I know this is a tired old discussion, and largely tangential here (I apologise for that), but each time we hear of new scientific knowledge it strikes me that the gulf between what we currently know and what our ancients thought they knew seems to widen. Unless you're good at forcing things straight by strenuous contortion.
It is called the hermeneutical gap. It is something we have to be aware of when reading ancient texts. It is best to understand them in their own terms rather than trying to impose modernist or even post modern paradigms on the authors.
I don’t think it is all that helpful to try and support or interpret apocalyptic prophecy through or with this kind of science either. The contortion might produce an intellectual hernia.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But this thread is not about that, but about the end of this universe in the Second Coming.
Fair enough, yes. Very interesting, too!
Apologies again for tangent.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
I know this is a tired old discussion, and largely tangential here (I apologise for that), but each time we hear of new scientific knowledge it strikes me that the gulf between what we currently know and what our ancients thought they knew seems to widen. Unless you're good at forcing things straight by strenuous contortion.
For "new scientific knowledge" read: "new scientific speculation"
For "what we currently know" read: "what we currently think we know" or "what we think we have managed to successfully fit into our preconceived philosophy"
'Knowledge', of course, is not defined as "successfully making data fit a preconceived model". We see an example of this presumption in the Wikipedia article about the CMB Cold Spot:
quote:
A controversial claim by Laura Mersini-Houghton is that it could be the imprint of another universe beyond our own, caused by quantum entanglement between universes before they were separated by cosmic inflation.[14] Laura Mersini-Houghton said, "Standard cosmology cannot explain such a giant cosmic hole" and made the remarkable hypothesis that the WMAP cold spot is "… the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own." If true this provides the first empirical evidence for a parallel universe (though theoretical models of parallel universes existed previously).
So let me get this straight... someone comes up with a highly speculative theory, for which there is no direct empirical evidence. IF TRUE (in other words, if we take a leap of faith and just resort to sheer naked belief in the truth of this hypothesis) then the Cold Spot qualifies as "the first empirical evidence for a parallel universe". So, hey, we now have empirical evidence for a parallel universe!
Sorry to break it to whomever, but this 'logic' only works if all other conceivable* explanations have been irrefutably falsified. A rather tall order, I would suggest, from our little vantage point in the universe.
*And not just conceivable to the limited, finite human mind!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The ultimate causality of God does not require a spacetime beginning. In practice, the "Big Bang" certainly is more congenial to Christian theology, i.e., another layer of abstraction is required if there is not literal beginning.
Although an eternal universe does avoid the question: 'What did God do before he created the world?'
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Etymological Evangelical, I do not quite see what you're getting at. Are you claiming that the truth validity of a Bronze Age understanding of the mechanisms of the universe is equal to that of modern science? Or are you suggesting that modern scientific understanding is just as shit as that of the ancients?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
Etymological Evangelical, I do not quite see what you're getting at. Are you claiming that the truth validity of a Bronze Age understanding of the mechanisms of the universe is equal to that of modern science?
Not necessarily. But any truth claim - whatever the source - should be supported by facts, not speculation.
quote:
Or are you suggesting that modern scientific understanding is just as shit as that of the ancients?
It depends what you mean by "modern scientific understanding". Is there such a homogeneous thing? (If so, then I never realised that every single qualified scientist agrees with every other scientist on every single truth claim!!)
It all comes down to evidence, and the way that evidence is handled.
"Just as shit as that of the ancients" of course implies that everything the ancients said was wrong. Which is a pretty shitty analysis, I would suggest.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Nonsense! It implies nothing of the sort.
You appear to be upholding the suggestion that the evidence of pre-scientific understanding is somehow equal in principle to that of current understanding derived from the scientific method. Is that a fair interpretation of your position?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
You appear to be upholding the suggestion that the evidence of pre-scientific understanding is somehow equal in principle to that of current understanding derived from the scientific method. Is that a fair interpretation of your position?
No.
I am simply drawing a distinction between 'knowledge' and 'speculation'. Much of what science delivers (especially concerning the deep past and future) is speculative. In fact, how much of it is actually the result of the application of the empirical scientific method, strictly speaking (without any role for philosophical special pleading)?
I am not interested in carving up intellectual history into periods divided by the advent of modern science. This is the delusion of those with a certain dogmatic (and, I would say, quasi-religious) view of progress, in which history ineluctably moves in one direction, namely, towards naturalism (ironic, considering that naturalism has no room for teleology). I am interested in evidence and sound methodology, irrespective of whether the word 'science' is hung on it, or not. The example I gave is not sound methodology, but it would be considered part of "modern science".
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
NBC news, quoted by IngoB:
without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light
Even if it moved at the speed of light, it'd still need a lot of time to cover the Universe. We only have to worry if it starts somewhere near us. (Hmm, maybe better switch off the LHC? )
It's moving at the speed of light. You won't see it until it hits you.
Oh, I don't know. It could be on it's way - try googling "Eridanus supervoid".
If we can see it, then it is not expanding at the speed of light.
Actually that was a joke. But in fact if the effect involves quantum entanglement then the speed of light is irrelevant.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I think the Big Slurp is already happening in my house. It has taken one sock of at least a couple of pairs. And possibly my car keys.
Within the budget of my country, there's probably a Big Slurp going on as well.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
While I have the utmost repect for Laura Mersini-Houghton, and her ability to conceptualise, we are presently saturated with unproveable theories about the origins of space-time. Perhaps we are in a small bubble among infinite bubbles as Laura suggests, or the big bang was the beginning, before which time didn't exist. Or perhaps we are part of a big bounce, of a universe which perpetually expands, contracts, crunches and expands again.
We may never know, because there's a limit to what is observable. The idea that an expanding vacuum may engulf us is just as likely as the rest. As interesting as I find such speculation, and I do, I'm quite happy to trust that the origins of the universe, our place in it and its ultimate destination are part of the Creator's plan, and are thus governed by Divine Providence. I sleep quite easy in that knowledge.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There's a very big problem with moving to another solar system. Well, actually two big problems, one physical - we don't have the time to get there - and one moral.
If there is a habitable (by us) planet out there, the speed with which our Earth became inhabited (by any life) suggests that it will already be inhabited by others. We have, perhaps, developed our understanding beyond what was held when the Europeans moved into Africa, America, and Australia, that we are entitled to take others' living space. When I was reading SF back in the 60's, this issue had already raised its head, but it bears repetition.
This place is what we've got. God alone knows what we'll be by the time of the red giant Sun.
I accept the technical challenges. It may be that we need to start our paths on multigenerational ships, to get between solar systems.
But I have no truck with the morality issue. It will boil down to stay-here-and-die or move-elsewhere-and-survive. Evolution has built surviving into us, regardless of cost. It’s what we do.
I suspect the prevailing attitude of the people on the ships will be that if others are already there when we arrive then they had better make room for us. Of course those who don’t have this attitude, or want humanity to die out, won’t have boarded the ships in the first place, so they will already be dead.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I suspect the prevailing attitude of the people on the ships will be that if others are already there when we arrive then they had better make room for us.
We could always devote our energies to trying to figure out how to terraform lifeless planets so that they are capable of sustaining us...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I suspect the prevailing attitude of the people on the ships will be that if others are already there when we arrive then they had better make room for us.
We could always devote our energies to trying to figure out how to terraform lifeless planets so that they are capable of sustaining us...
Yes, that is a definite alternative, and I suspect that there may be multiple ships, some to lifeless planets to terraform, some to planets suspected of harbouring life, on the basis that if life is already there we can also survive there.
But by definition those with a moral objection to leaving Earth will not get on the ships in the first place, so everyone on the ships will not have those objections. Humanity will proceed on the next stage of its journey without the morality to say “we should not do this”. Only with the morality that “we should do something with minimum impact” or with the morality that “we should do something as expediently as possible”.
I guess for further reference you should consult the Science Fiction section of your local library!
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I know this is a tired old discussion, and largely tangential here (I apologise for that), but each time we hear of new scientific knowledge it strikes me that the gulf between what we currently know and what our ancients thought they knew seems to widen. Unless you're good at forcing things straight by strenuous contortion.
We live in an age where every bit of cosmology that has actual support in real observations and experimental data accords smoothly with traditional Christian views, whereas alternate hypothesis (like the "multiverse") are so incredibly anti-parsimonious as to lead to an Ockhamian splatter-fest as soon as the protective layer of pure ideology is removed.
We live in an age where the physical theory with the undoubtedly best experimental confirmation, quantum theory, has relied for many decades and fundamentally on an complete ad hoc mechanism ("the collapse of the wavefunction") that nobody really understands, but which seems to be tied annoyingly to the presence of very special entities, "observers", us. This, and the general structure of quantum theory, provides ample room for speculations, including religiously motivated ones.
We live in an age where biology is taking over as the lead science from physics. Biologists still can't write a paper without invoking some kind of teleology somewhere, and that's not going to change either. It is hence just a question of time until the ideology of rejecting final causality, which was tied to the mechanistic views from physics, is overcome. Once final causality is back, intellectual atheism will be deprived of its oxygen.
We live in an age where the rapid advances of neuroscience increasingly make Descartes' points about doubting evidence relevant. While Cartesian dualism is dubious (though not proven wrong, as many assume), the gap between the measurements of brain function and the core experiential truth of mental life is if at all growing wider and deeper. Already a honest materialist must declare himself to be an illusion, at which point really only two reactions are possible: point at him and ROTFL, or throw him into a lunatic asylum. Unsurprisingly, the hylemorphic dualism of traditional Christianity fits perfectly fine with all available evidence.
We live in an age where the original Darwinism has died a death of thousand cuts, and the current theory of evolution (if there is anything deserving the name) is some hodgepodge of punctuated equilibria, cross-species genetic vectors, group evolution and distinctly Lamarckian noises about epigenetics. Anyway, whatever the fate of "evolution", it does not actually threaten classical theism. Whether Christianity will get more support from this than the Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve remains to be seen.
We live in an age where Thomism has made a comeback through analytical philosophy and essentialism is becoming increasingly popular again. Furthermore, it has been centuries since proofs of God have been last so vigorously and competently defended. Not only has there been a new lease of life for classical arguments, new ones have emerged as well (probabilistic, grammar based, ...). Finally, post-modernism, where not busy eating itself, has made some valid points about knowledge and interpretation that make it difficult to keep a straight face when listening to scientism-ists. It is to be expected that we will progress beyond Popperian and even Kuhninan simplifications in describing what real scientists actually do.
This is going to be a golden age for Christians, intellectually at least. Atheism is so 20thC.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
I really enjoyed that, IngoB. Bravo!
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Good stuff, IngoB.
I would say that postmodernism can help theism, as it challenges any hegemonic narrative. Now, of course, you can argue that theism was that narrative, but today, it might be seen as naturalism, materialism, and so on.
Thus, pm can help us to say, OK, naturalism and science are instrumentally useful, but who is to say that they are therefore 'true narratives'?
I suppose there is a riposte - who is to say that theism is?
But at any rate, the presumed hegemony of naturalism is looking wobbly.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Whether Christianity will get more support from this than the Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve remains to be seen.
Because it's only tangential to this particular thread (and a DH), I've addressed some of the common creationist misconceptions about those terms in another thread.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
Atheism is so 20thC.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would say that postmodernism can help theism, as it challenges any hegemonic narrative. Now, of course, you can argue that theism was that narrative, but today, it might be seen as naturalism, materialism, and so on.
It's a knife designed to turn in the hand of any claimant to objective truth (or indeed objective reality), no matter how much fun it is to stab other such claimants.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Because it's only tangential to this particular thread (and a DH), I've addressed some of the common creationist misconceptions about those terms in another thread.
Too late mate, the cat's out of the bag now! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
@IngoB
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Biologists still can't write a paper without invoking some kind of teleology somewhere, and that's not going to change either.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
Biologists still can't write a paper without invoking some kind of teleology somewhere, and that's not going to change either.
The survival agenda, perhaps?
Why would a mere configuration of molecules want to or need to remain or replicate in that particular configuration? To pass on their genes? But why would a totally mindless bunch of molecules give a damn about passing on information?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The survival agenda, perhaps?
Why would a mere configuration of molecules want to or need to remain or replicate in that particular configuration? To pass on their genes? But why would a totally mindless bunch of molecules give a damn about passing on information?
Of course, that could be said of any chemical interaction. Why would methane and oxygen want to recombine to form water and carbon dioxide? The fact that they consistently seem to do so, according to your "reasoning", is evidence that these simple particles are making an active decision to be flammable.
[ 20. February 2013, 20:25: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Of course, that could be said of any chemical interaction. Why would methane and oxygen want to recombine to form water and carbon dioxide? The fact that they consistently seem to do so, according to your "reasoning", is evidence that these simple particles are making an active decision to be flammable.
I suppose that argument would have some merit if the construction of life was somehow inherently imprinted on the laws of physics and chemistry, such that the mere application of those laws would inevitably produce little Croesoses and EEs.
I am sure that even you realise that this is not the case.
We are, of course, straying into Findus Lasagne territory now...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Of course, that could be said of any chemical interaction. Why would methane and oxygen want to recombine to form water and carbon dioxide? The fact that they consistently seem to do so, according to your "reasoning", is evidence that these simple particles are making an active decision to be flammable.
I suppose that argument would have some merit if the construction of life was somehow inherently imprinted on the laws of physics and chemistry, such that the mere application of those laws would inevitably produce little Croesoses and EEs.
In what ways do the chemical processes involved in life violate the laws of physics and chemistry? You seem to be arguing that photosynthesis or mitosis, to pick two examples, are impossible without resorting to "magic" as an explanation.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
In what ways do the chemical processes involved in life violate the laws of physics and chemistry?
I didn't say that, and you know it!
There is a world of difference between saying that living systems are not the inevitable consequence of the laws of physics and chemistry and saying that processes within living systems violate those laws.
You have distorted many of my comments over the last few years, and this is a prime example.
As for magic... I don't know what the hell you are talking about!
[ 20. February 2013, 21:09: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
In what ways do the chemical processes involved in life violate the laws of physics and chemistry? You seem to be arguing that photosynthesis or mitosis, to pick two examples, are impossible without resorting to "magic" as an explanation.
I didn't say that, and you know it!
Ahem.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why would a mere configuration of molecules want to or need to remain or replicate in that particular configuration? To pass on their genes? But why would a totally mindless bunch of molecules give a damn about passing on information?
Your very first sentence there sounds like a very clear description of mitosis. So why does a bacterium "want to or need to remain or replicate in that particular configuration"? This implies a lot more cognition than most would grant an E. coli. And how does that violate "the laws of physics and chemistry", as you claim?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We live in an age where every bit of cosmology that has actual support in real observations and experimental data accords smoothly with traditional Christian views,
Traditional Christian views like geocentrism?
There are many Christian groups in the US that are completely opposed to the Big Bang.
There are even self professed catholic faithful that don't even like heliocentrism.
"Scripture Catholic"
Relevant quote:
quote:
I am a faithful Catholic, not a scientist. I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. When presented with a question of faith (such as how God created the universe), I look to the Scriptures, the Tradition and the teachings of the Catholic Church for the answer. I do not rely upon modern scientists who have been unable to prove heliocentrism and disprove geocentrism, especially those who deny the inerrancy of Scripture and generally abhor the Catholic faith.
I'm not claiming that you are one of those of course. Just questioning how "traditional" the acceptance of modern cosmology is for Christians.
And what (if any) scriptural basis it has.
And about those modern teleologic biologists I seriously doubt it. A relevant quote would be good. And it should be them really being teleologic instead of them making sloppy use of
language.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Your very first sentence there sounds like a very clear description of mitosis. So why does a bacterium "want to or need to remain or replicate in that particular configuration"? This implies a lot more cognition than most would grant an E. coli. And how does that violate "the laws of physics and chemistry", as you claim?
I repeat: I did NOT say - or even imply - that this violates the laws of physics and chemistry. So why are you claiming that I said this?
The question under discussion is teleology, and how biologists (philosophical naturalists or otherwise) read teleology into their discipline. You are looking at a bacterium and observing its processes and thereby assuming that the appearance of purpose is merely that: appearance. You observe that there are various laws at work in mitosis, for example, and since these laws are part of nature, and they appear to work perfectly adequately, there is no need to assume any purpose in their operation.
But this is not what I am talking about. I am not looking at life as a kind of biological fait accompli, but rather looking at the laws which are claimed to be the sole creator of life, and I see that there is nothing in those laws which determine or cause any kind of survival instinct, such that any organism would have any drive to reproduce. But this teleological factor is constantly assumed to be intrinsic to the natural world. To suggest that, because it exists, and because the processes of reproduction and replication can be studied and observed, it must be something entirely material, is begging the question.
We see purpose in nature, although nature is purposeless. Therefore logic tells us that some other factor has ordered matter - according to its laws (and not in violation of its laws) - to provide this purpose. Unfortunately you call this 'magic', which is just a typical "New Atheist" cheap shot, that contributes nothing sensible to the discussion. Intelligence is not magic; in fact, it's the very antithesis of magic! Achieving complex operations without the role and process of intelligence is what magic is all about. The naturalistic explanation for the emergence of life is certainly 'magic', for this reason.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would say that postmodernism can help theism, as it challenges any hegemonic narrative. Now, of course, you can argue that theism was that narrative, but today, it might be seen as naturalism, materialism, and so on.
It's a knife designed to turn in the hand of any claimant to objective truth (or indeed objective reality), no matter how much fun it is to stab other such claimants.
Objective truth? Wow, do people still talk about that? That's so 20th century, dude.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Your very first sentence there sounds like a very clear description of mitosis. So why does a bacterium "want to or need to remain or replicate in that particular configuration"? This implies a lot more cognition than most would grant an E. coli. And how does that violate "the laws of physics and chemistry", as you claim?
I repeat: I did NOT say - or even imply - that this violates the laws of physics and chemistry. So why are you claiming that I said this?
1) I made the point that your assertion that chemical reactions require some act of volition on the part of the molecules to take place is equally applicable to inorganic chemistry.
2) You then responded that life was some kind of exception to "the laws of physics and chemistry". You were rather vague about what principles were involved if those don't apply.
So, once again, if molecules can interact without having wants or needs, why do you imply otherwise? Contrariwise, if they're conscious actors then why do they always seem to make the same decision? Aren't there any rogue oxygen atoms out there who simply decide one day "No, I don't think I'll engage in electron exchange after all"?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am not looking at life as a kind of biological fait accompli, but rather looking at the laws which are claimed to be the sole creator of life, and I see that there is nothing in those laws which determine or cause any kind of survival instinct, such that any organism would have any drive to reproduce.
So are you or aren't you arguing that mitosis is an unnatural act that couldn't be accomplished within the bounds of physics and chemistry? You seem to be arguing that there's no way a prokaryote could possibly reproduce by binary fission ("I see that there is nothing in those laws which determine or cause any kind of survival instinct, such that any organism would have any drive to reproduce"). And yet bacteria reproduce, apparently without any particular "drive" (or any other underlying thought process). Yet when I point this out you get all huffy. Which is it?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But this teleological factor is constantly assumed to be intrinsic to the natural world. To suggest that, because it exists, and because the processes of reproduction and replication can be studied and observed, it must be something entirely material, is begging the question.
Not question begging, a question that doesn't need to be asked. Yes, you can postulate that there are unseen intellects manipulating all physical interactions, but if they're consistent and never vary why bother with the hypothesis? I'm not sure there's a way to distinguish between water flowing downhill because of gravitational attraction, water choosing to flow downhill because it's a conscious entity, or water flowing downhill because Mighty Poseidon is gathering it to his bosom. If there's no way to convince Poseidon or the water entity to behave differently, it's essentially irrelevant.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Achieving complex operations without the role and process of intelligence is what magic is all about. The naturalistic explanation for the emergence of life is certainly 'magic', for this reason.
Which only begs the question of what counts as "complex operations"? For example, taking a scattered drift of atoms in space, compressing them into a single body, and sorting them by density would seem to be a somewhat "complex" operation, but gravity and buoyancy working together will do that.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
