|
Post by stevec on Mar 17, 2014 11:23:04 GMT -6
What are you talking about? What facts nd discoveries, "however right or wrong", are we discussing here? When you figure that out, explain to me how they are impacting reality. Just that there are theories that can change everything. At one point they measure light in a straight line... now we know that light is bendable. How did that affect what we knew? What changed when we understood that regular physics isn't the norm and the quantum physics became a reality? Do you think we will never discover anything that will challenge the conclusions that we have now? "Regular" or classical physics is still the norm and it performs as it always has at the macro level. Quantum physics is another branch that describes how particles behave at the atomic level. Both "regular" and quantum physics exist similtaneously in reality. The latter did not replace the former. We've known for over a hundred years that light bends. Just last week astronomers published a paper that described how they used gravtational lensing to discover strings of galaxies 13 billion light years distant. They were surprised to discover that these first galaxies were as massive and bright as they were, and mature - they contain heavy elements. No mention, btw, of Wheeler's feedback loop and quasar double slit idea and how all that relates to consciousness and our universe's designed for life ideas. It was the perfect time to do so, but Wheeler's ideas are not testable.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 17, 2014 11:28:13 GMT -6
The interesting thing aout Wheeler's ideas is that if he's on to something, then Shirley MacLaine and numerous other New Age thinkers are right: We are God. At the very least, we're co-creators with whatever it is we call "God." Which would tidily render accusations of "playing God" so much bullshit. It will be a very bizarre day when philosophy and science are united under one theory.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 17, 2014 11:34:25 GMT -6
The interesting thing aout Wheeler's ideas is that if he's on to something, then Shirley MacLaine and numerous other New Age thinkers are right: We are God. At the very least, we're co-creators with whatever it is we call "God." Which would tidily render accusations of "playing God" so much bullshit. It will be a very bizarre day when philosophy and science are united under one theory. Yup. No argument with that. But, ya gotta admit it would snatch a knot in the tails of Christians especially if science discovered that creation of the universe was not a past event which established certain immutable laws of existence but rather is ongoing with humans being active participants. So, do new destructive agents of disease such as the AIDS virus mutate and then evolve, or do we create them? And if, as "we create reality" proponents insist, we do actually do so, aren't we then directly responsible for the global warming which has the definite potential to render us extinct? The whole idea that God will protect and provide for us becomes as solid as quicksand as a result.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 17, 2014 12:00:02 GMT -6
Dot,
I agree, and Ken has no idea where these philosophies will lead us. All he sees is someone of Wheeler's stature using words like "design", "purpose", and "consciousness" and he gets an erection. They are not discussing his Bible god.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 17, 2014 12:35:45 GMT -6
Dot, I agree, and Ken has no idea where these philosophies will lead us. All he sees is someone of Wheeler's stature using words like "design", "purpose", and "consciousness" and he gets an erection. They are not discussing his Bible god. Yuppers. That the universe is "fine-tuned" is one of the creationists' pet buzzwords in a sense which will be rendered laughable if physicists eventually find any evidence supporting Wheeler's musings.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 17, 2014 12:43:47 GMT -6
What's interesting about the article, IMO, is that it reveals that even the most brilliant scientists can hold wingnut ideas.
More interesting is the fact that what starts as a bizarre "what-if" occasionally leads to a more creative and inventive line of thinking that eventually produces arresting discoveries. However, by that point, the result typically doesn't bear out the original idea at all. Such is the flexibility of human creativity tempered by the scientific method.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 17, 2014 15:06:31 GMT -6
I hope Wheeler figures out the meaning of existence before his time runs out. Doubt that he did. Googled his bio out of curiosity and found that he shuffled off to where W.C. Fields preferred to be instead of Philly some six years after that article was dated.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 17, 2014 16:13:49 GMT -6
At the very least, we're co-creators with whatever it is we call "God." \ Yes... we are created in His image and in His likeness. Isn't it written in your scriptures "ye are gods"?
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 17, 2014 16:20:50 GMT -6
However right or wrong he may be... I find that it outlines the reality that we can make one discovery that changes everything we have established as facts before. Ooookay, and what in this article bears any resemblance to a "discovery that changes everything"? I must have overlooked something. Hey, people. Before we all go haywire here... this is his musings, nothing is in concrete, he hasn't "discovered" anything yet. The point is simply that there is so much still to learn and I found this as a "mind bender". The most I can get out of it is that there are discoveries (like the black hole) that still challenge us and that we IMO should definitely have the attitude of "the more I learn the more I realize we still know nothing (in comparison to what there is still to learn). One concept opens a dozen doors. As one person said in the article: just a mind bender.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 17, 2014 16:27:02 GMT -6
What's interesting about the article, IMO, is that it reveals that even the most brilliant scientists can hold wingnut ideas. More interesting is the fact that what starts as a bizarre "what-if" occasionally leads to a more creative and inventive line of thinking that eventually produces arresting discoveries. However, by that point, the result typically doesn't bear out the original idea at all. Such is the flexibility of human creativity tempered by the scientific method. And yet wasn't Einsteins theory on relativity was criticized at the beginning. Not saying this gentleman is right but many a new discovery was made because someone decided to press the limits of theory.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 17, 2014 16:28:39 GMT -6
Dot, They are not discussing his Bible god. Obviously. No doubt you are still on a Jihad against Christians. Is this common for you?
|
|
|
Post by ken on Mar 17, 2014 16:49:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 17, 2014 17:44:58 GMT -6
Dot, They are not discussing his Bible god. Obviously. No doubt you are still on a Jihad against Christians. Is this common for you? It's what I do best.
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 17, 2014 17:55:36 GMT -6
Steve, apparently this is no "paper" on this yet... so I am sure that it has no interesting matter to you and most likely you will attach this to "Ken's God" in some form or another. And why wouldn't we considering that you led off with a reference to the universe being "fine-tuned for life"? Considering that the phrase is commonly used in a creationist context as you so often do with such things, a "See there! The Bible is confirmed by science! I keep telling you guys that" is what we've learned to expect from such references. Besides, as I pointed out a few back, Wheeler's out-there ideas most likely died with him six years ago.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 17, 2014 18:32:53 GMT -6
What's interesting about the article, IMO, is that it reveals that even the most brilliant scientists can hold wingnut ideas. More interesting is the fact that what starts as a bizarre "what-if" occasionally leads to a more creative and inventive line of thinking that eventually produces arresting discoveries. However, by that point, the result typically doesn't bear out the original idea at all. Such is the flexibility of human creativity tempered by the scientific method. And yet wasn't Einsteins theory on relativity was criticized at the beginning. Not saying this gentleman is right but many a new discovery was made because someone decided to press the limits of theory. Only a handful of people(literally) in the world actually knew what Einstein was talking about, but Einstein backed up his claims with formulas and research, Wheeler hasn't.Wheeler is a brilliant scientist, don't misunderstand my criticism, it's just that the article you provided was nothing more than a fluff piece where Wheeler waxed philosophically about what he thinks about in his retirement. It doesn't represent any scientific claims, nor does Wheeler claim any sort of research is currently being done to examine his ideas. I'm sorry you feel there's a jihad, but the fact of the matter is that you represent this fluff article as science, and it is clearly not. When you don't explain yourself, or hide your goals, I start the jihad engines. I still don't understand the point of your posting this thread, since Wheeler offered nothing resembling concrete or even theoretical science. He handed a piece of scribbled scrap paper to the author. C'mom Ken, do some research.
|
|