The111 1 #26 April 5, 2004 QuoteIt happens that way much in a similar way that magnets are attracted to each other. No intelligent design. It's simply chemistry and physics. There -is- a certain amount of randomness in impurities and mutations, but I don't see that as any proof of intelligent design either. As Nightingale said, the question is philosophical and can't be answered by simply "it's physics" or "it's chemistry". The question is why. Saying orderly things happen because other orderly things happen still doesn't explain why orderly things happen. Magnetic attraction doesn't prove or disprove intelligent design, but depending on your philosophical stance it can apparently be used for either case. QuoteI see few things in the universe that can't be explained by physics. The few things that can't be fully explained so far seem to happen at at scales you or I are unlikely to experience on a daily basis. I'm an engineer often accused of thinking too much like an engineer, and that statement even makes me laugh. I would modify it to "I see few physical things in the universe that can't be explained by physics". But there is a lot more to the world besides the physical side. Emotion, for example, which is why most of us skydive and are on this forum in the first place. But there probably is a physical counterpart to emotion (here I am arguing against my own point as usual), and maybe someday with a greater understanding of our own internal physics, we will be able to artificially reproduce emotions and everything we consider reality (or maybe we already can, I don't pretend to know everything that's out there in the techno world right now). Again the issue becomes philosophical. Are our lives, our emotions and our passions simply particles following the physical laws they're subjected to? Or are we something more, something unique and personal, intelligent and spiritual (I hate that fucking adjective and here I am using it). Do you love skydiving because of choices you have made and things you have decided to value, or is it simply the result of the way your physical and chemical body has responded to the physical and chemical world it's been thrust into? Or is it possible both are true? Two ways to say the same thing? More importantly, does it even matter? It's still hella fun either way (skydiving, that is...)www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #27 April 5, 2004 QuoteA question we've been trying to answer for the past 10,000 years. And we are getting closer and closer to being able to answer that question. Do you really believe that?www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,108 #28 April 5, 2004 >>And we are getting closer and closer to being able to answer that question. >Do you really believe that? Yes. Why does radium glow? Emission of alpha particles that excite nearby molecules. Why does the sun burn? Because hydrogen is being fused to helium via a process we can duplicate here (for very short times) and emitting enormous amounts of energy in the process. Why do northern lights appear sometimes? Because charged particles from the sun are funnelled to the north and south poles by the planet's magnetic fields, and strike the upper atmosphere causing it to luminesce. We didn't know the answers to those questions 10,000 years ago. Why does gravity do what it does? Why is Planck's Constant 6.62×10-34 m^2kg/s? We don't know yet. Will we find out someday? Perhaps. We will certainly come closer to knowing. One of the more interesting developments in physics on a philosophical level is not that we don't know some things - we've realized we don't know some things since the beginning of time. It's that we _can't_ know some things, as Heisenberg showed us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #29 April 5, 2004 The answer to almost every why provokes another why. Sometimes the secondary why is also able to be answered by a physical explanation. But eventually, the why's lead to a philosophical why, which as you stated, can't be answered. I think that a lot of religions seek to answer these unanswerable questions though. As far as Heisenberg though (what I vaguely remember from high school chemistry years ago)... isn't that something along the lines of you can't know where a particle is and how fast it's going since the "locating" process affects its energy? Well what if as technology gets better and better, we create a video camera that can see things that small and fast, and we can watch it frame by frame? Would that prove Heisenberg wrong? Or am I in way over my head and have no idea what I'm talking about?www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonSanta 0 #30 April 5, 2004 Well, I gotta counter your why with another why -and please excuse my bluntness. Why do you say "goddidit" when you have no answer? You have no indications for or against. An honest approach would be to say "I do not know". Humans have used Goddidit for so many things through the years - take Thor, God of thunder, for instance. I'll not go into the debate whether there is a God(s) or not - what I just want to point is that we might as well apply Occam's Razor to these types of arguments. Or I can add another why. Why does there have to be a meaning to things? How can you be sure there *is* a meaning to things? What is the meaning of coffee - is it to be consumed, to be snorted, to be thrown into the air? Or perhaps it simply is whatever it is, and why's and wherefores are simple results of meta-cognition, in whatever species it may find hold? And it is possible the same applies for life - or even worse, that Dawkin's is right - we're mere gene carriers, whether we like it or not. Individuals matter not - genes do. Who knows? At least Dawkin's argument is somewhat founded in scientific work. This is my territory, or where you'll find me anyhow. I'd fervently hope there is a god and all that, but I'd still maintain that if one is to be intellectually honest and apply the same standards to this philosophical topic as one does to, say, the evaluation of a rig, then "I don't know, therefore god did it" is far from good enough. Hope you're right though. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,108 #31 April 5, 2004 >The answer to almost every why provokes another why. Sometimes > the secondary why is also able to be answered by a physical > explanation. But eventually, the why's lead to a philosophical why, >which as you stated, can't be answered. Depends on what you're asking. We know how momentum transfer works down to the details now; there are no more "whys" to answer at the real physical level. Sometimes you get to more philosophical why's, like why Planck's is like it is. But overall, our view of how the universe works is a lot closer to reality than it was a long time ago. >As far as Heisenberg though (what I vaguely remember from high > school chemistry years ago)... isn't that something along the lines > of you can't know where a particle is and how fast it's going since > the "locating" process affects its energy? In a way. Essentially the process of observation changes the particle being observed. >Well what if as technology gets better and better, we create a video > camera that can see things that small and fast, and we can watch it > frame by frame? Would that prove Heisenberg wrong? Or am I in > way over my head and have no idea what I'm talking about? Ah, but what do video cameras use? Photons. And if you're banging photons off the particle to be measured, you're going to affect it. There are a dozen ways to measure subatomic particles, from colliding it with something else and watching its decay path in a cloud chamber to exciting atoms that contain the particles and watching their reaction. Heisenberg was the first to point out that, at a small enough level, there is simply no way to closely measure something without affecting it somehow, and that affect renders you unable to observe it very closely. It means that there are some details of particles that we simply cannot know, and that means that even at a macroscopic level we must always use approximations. They can be accurate to an almost arbitrary degree, but cannot reach 100%. There is a finite possibility that when you open the valve on a pressurized SCUBA tank that air will rush into the tank, but it's so small a chance that you can essentially disregard it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #32 April 5, 2004 Heisenberg is cool. He directly explains why our 4-way team scores lower whenever our cameraman falls on us during exit. I like religious discussions - they exemplify mankind's search for an external reason for being. I like non-religious philosophy too. It exemplifies mankind's search for an internal reason for being. Both paths can provide personal growth when they aren't abused. (I do prefer non-religious discussions and in this area, I'm pretty well aligned with BV's discussions). Funny the ramafications that gravity falls off with the square of distance rather than 1.9999 or 2.001 or whatever. Things like that are pretty cool. 0, 1, e, pi, i those five number pretty well can be used to describe anything..... ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snowflake 0 #33 April 5, 2004 QuoteEdited to add: Wanna get revenge? Make up little flyers that say "SATAN WANTS YOU" with little devil pictures (similar to what they have) and put it on everyone's car outside their church. An eye for an eye, eh? Thanks I never thought of that Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #34 April 5, 2004 an example: Pick anything scientific. Anything at all. Start asking why it works. Take, for example, a rube-goldberg machine... you know, one of those wacky ones that one action causes a million different things. you can ask, starting from the end and working your way back... why does the marble fall into the bucket? because the boot kicked the marble. why did the boot kick the marble? because the roller skate hit the boot. why did the rollerskate hit the boot? because the dominos hit the roller skate. why did the dominos hit the roller skate? because the person who created the rube-goldberg machine hit the domino. no matter where you start, you get back to a point where SOMEONE had to do SOMETHING to put a series of events into motion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #35 April 5, 2004 It's called "The Law of Causality." Every limited thing is caused by something other than itself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #36 April 5, 2004 Because the mouse stopped in the little circle. What a great board game. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #38 April 5, 2004 Quoteno matter where you start, you get back to a point where SOMEONE had to do SOMETHING to put a series of events into motion. I disagree. I believe that some things can happen without sentient input. Sometimes, random, unplanned things just happen. No one meant for them to happen, no one made them happen. They just happened. That, after all, is the meaning of the second half of "Blue Skies, Black Death."-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #39 April 5, 2004 QuoteWhy do you say "goddidit" when you have no answer? You have no indications for or against. An honest approach would be to say "I do not know". Hope you're right though. Dude, did I imply anywhere that I believe "goddidit"? I did state that to some (myself included), there are signs that seem to point to intelligent design in the world around me. But there are also signs that point to other possibilities. Your statement about the honesty of an "I don't know approach"... you have no idea how many times I have said those EXACT WORDS! I thought I already put it in this thread but I guess I didn't, though I did PM it to someone today. I've never heard anyone else say it the same way, but you used literally almost the exact same words I always use. The whole thing started years ago when one of those "street preachers" on my college campus was yelling at everyone, as I walked by he shouted at me and told me I needed to be more humble. I asked him if he realized the irony of his statement. He's sitting here claiming to know the answers to all the philosophical questions that have plagued man since the beginning of time. Wouldn't it be more humble and *honest* to admit that you can't know? Since then that's the stance I've taken. I think it is possible and maybe even probable there is a "god", and it might be nice, but the most honest thing I can say is "I don't know".www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #40 April 5, 2004 There's no such thing as random. Everything has a cause. Even your "random" malfunctions have causes. There is always a reason. Weird wind, strange body position, there's always something. It isn't always something preventable, but there's always something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #41 April 5, 2004 I believe this also. Nothing "just happens." IMO Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #42 April 5, 2004 QuoteThere's no such thing as random. Everything has a cause. Flip a coin... heads or tails? What was the cause? I realize the analogy fails on some levels and I'm not really taking a side in the argument (typical of me), but I am offering a counterpoint. www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #43 April 5, 2004 heads or tails isn't random. its caused by the way you flip the coin. We did an experiment in high school where we had a machine flipping a coin in a vacuum. landed on heads every time. and the fact that the coin is flipping at all is CAUSED by you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,108 #44 April 5, 2004 >Flip a coin... heads or tails? What was the cause? Physics and how you set up the initial conditions. You could create a machine that would flip a coin and get the same result every time. Since we're not as good as a machine, the random changes in how our muscles work, what surface the coin lands on, how it tumbles through the air makes it harder (not impossible, just harder) to predict on what side it will land. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The111 1 #45 April 5, 2004 Hmm, both very good points. I stand corrected. Which makes me wonder... the "heads or tails" coinflip is a traditional "example" of a statistical 50/50 chance, which is why I used it. Obviously it was just shown to be more than that. Can someone think of a better example of random statistical chance? I could say, put 100 tickets in a hat, shake the hat up, reach in and see what you get, but that doesn't work as an example, because that was physically determined by the mechanics of the "shaking up the hat" process and the movements of your hand while entering the shaken up hat and reaching for a ticket. The only thing I can think of is a random number generator for a computer, and I honestly don't know precisely how those work...www.WingsuitPhotos.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,108 #46 April 5, 2004 >Can someone think of a better example of random statistical chance? Atomic decay. >The only thing I can think of is a random number generator for a >computer, and I honestly don't know precisely how those work... Most of them now use a randomizer that is "seeded" with a number. Since computers are deterministic, the same seed will always give you the same "random" numbers, so you need a good random seed. A lot of computers use the time between keystrokes as the seed, since that's pretty hard to predict. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #47 April 5, 2004 what about the decay constant? or am I mixing up my science? (a distinct possibility) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pendragon 1 #48 April 5, 2004 >The only thing I can think of is a random number generator for a computer, and I honestly don't know precisely how those work... They use a chaotic function, which is seeded. The answer is then plugged into the formula to get the next, and so on. The curious thing about these functions is that, whilst you know how you got from A to B (through the formula), it is impossible to back-calculate from B to A: you cannot analyse the results and get any sort of correlation. As for the part earlier in this thread about religion, and maybe the answer lies in some constant: maybe the Pythagoreans knew something after all! Seems kinda funny worshipping root 2 though... BTW - it's obvious (when you think about it) why the exclusion principle always holds true: you cannot know precisely a particle's momentum and position because you have to time it's movement (so it's moved!) to know it's speed! Ever puzzled over a "spot the ball" competition? Oh, and lastly, order doesn't spontaneously form out of chaos as entropy must always increase (nth law of thermodynamics, I cannot remember which one..) Think of it this way: since when did a cup of cold coffee spontaneously re-heat itself sitting on your desk, taking it's heat from it's surroundings? That would be sooo cool though I must have been so bored to write all that! Sermon over... Dr P.-- BASE #1182 Muff #3573 PFI #52; UK WSI #13 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,108 #49 April 5, 2004 >what about the decay constant? The decay constant is a macroscopic phenomenon, applicable only to large numbers of atoms of a given isotope. There's no way to predict when a given isotope will decay; the half-life just tells you when, on average, half of them will have decayed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #50 April 5, 2004 but that does make it less than random... if it were completely random, then *poof* the entire sample could be gone in an instant, or it could stay forever, and that isn't what happens... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites