- Joined
- Jul 30, 2001
- Messages
- 633
OP deleted the content of this seminal post, rendering the rest of the thread indecipherable to varying degrees.
...
...
Last edited by a moderator:
GSX1400 said:What a nut!
Depends*.mindalai said:GSX1400 said:What a nut!
*sound of air being sucked sharply over teeth*
Are we allowed to say that here?
Well.... it's a logical answer, but not necessarily the only one. That sort of cardinality can be hard to defend .Justin_Anstey said:Nah, it's more like: "I think I know what the purpose of life is, surely it's the only logical answer."
Perhaps Max was talking about Karma? Individual existence on Earth being a stage of spiritual evolution in preparedness for the next plane of existence?Justin_Anstey said:I think I speak for many when I say... huh?MaxMolyneux said:I think which could be a purpose of this life is to grow for where we might go. We die but we wouldn't be really dying then.
We'll even be able to find some astronomers to talk to thanks to a remarkable book by Alan Lightman and Roberta Brawer entitled Origins. In this book the authors report interviews with cosmologists: interviews which explore the personal, philosophical and social inclinations of modern cosmologists. We'll get a chance to "listen" to some of these cosmologists as they give their reactions to Steven Weinberg's statement, "the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless."
...
Now lets begin our "talk" with the astronomers. First is Martin Rees. Rees is Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy at Cambridge University. Here's his response to Weinberg's statement: "I don't understand the remark at all. First of all, I'm not quite sure what's meant by saying the universe has a "point" or not. Some people react that way because life and intelligence seem a small, unimportant part of the universe. I think that's an invalid reaction for two reasons. First, of course, there may be life all over the universe ... . But if there's no life elsewhere-if life is such a rare accident that it got started only on this one Earth-then we shouldn't think of ourselves as being the culmination of evolution. ... It's quite conceivable that, even if life exists only here on Earth, it will eventually spread through the galaxy and beyond. So life may not forever be an unimportant trace contaminant of the universe, even though it now is. In fact, I find that a rather appealing view, and I think it could be salutary if it became widely shared. Then one could properly regard the preservation of our biosphere as a matter of cosmic importance. Despite our own species unprepossessing characteristics, it may have potentialities. ... f we snuffed ourselves out, we'd be destroying genuine cosmic possibilities. So even if one believes that life is unique to the Earth now, then that doesn't mean that life is forever going to be a trivial piece of the universe. And if life exists elsewhere, then there's still less reason to believe that, in any sense, the universe is pointless."
Louis Crane has proposed a meduso-anthropic principle, which suggests that universes could be fine-tuned for life by intelligent beings themselves manufacturing new universes. This is essentially identical to the theory of James N. Gardner, who in his Biocosm hypothesis argues that it is not the fact that the universe generates large numbers of black holes, which leads to the production of "daughter universes", but that the universe appears so friendly to Life. The “Selfish Biocosm” hypothesis proposes that life and intelligence have not emerged merely in a series of Darwinian accidents but through the strong Anthropic principle are essentially hardwired into the cycle of cosmic creation, evolution, death, and rebirth. He argues that the destiny of highly evolved intelligence (perhaps our distant progeny) is to infuse the entire universe with life (similar to what Ray Kurzweil proposed in The Singularity is Near, eventually to accomplish the ultimate feat of cosmic reproduction by spawning one or more “baby universes,” which will themselves be endowed with life generating properties.
the generation now alive may be one of the most important generations ever to walk the surface of the Earth; it may well decide if we safely make the transition to a type I civilisation.
Therein lies a great secret. My magic(k)al studies and one-time brush with psychotherapy have led me to believe that it is not only possible but extremely desireable to be able to 'program' our beliefs in a very real sense. Much of what both are about seems to relate to this.I can't accept that people really get to pick and choose what they believe and disbelieve in. Either one can believe in something or one cannot.
I notice that professor of genetics Steve Jones is doing the media rounds to promote a lecture he's doing at The Royal Society* tonight called 'Why Creationism is Wrong and Evolution is Right'. It's like he was cloned in the same lab as Dawkins, I am so sick of their feeble grumbling.
Theories without proof should be given equal ground? Are you sure? Evidence first, surely.Sthenno said:...Those theories with proof and those without should be given equal ground, neither universally vilified nor praised...
Dawkins, etc. present themselves as being the rational and sane alternative but just come across as a bunch of utterly banal whingers. The secular world needs an equal and opposite reaction to the threat posed by these noisy minority pressure groups and I think the UPOL is it. We need to fight fire with fire. It offers a genuine alternative to the claims of religion.
The modernized, disenchanted Anglican church is fading because people want magic not metaphors.
Theories without proof should be given equal ground? Are you sure? Evidence first, surely.
feen5 said:So Dawkins and Co are the sane and rational alternative but their message doesn't count because it comes across as boring and Whineing.?
I'm sorry have i missed a meeting or something.