• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Science is Not Magic


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#31 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 12 February 2011 - 02:34 AM

...an example of talk I hear far too often, like "immortality is just around the corner."

Who on god's green earth is saying this? Lately there seem to be a lot of threads attempting to disabuse us of such notions, despite the fact that we don't hold them. I guess it gets down to what the definition of 'corner' is. If immortality is just around the corner, it must be a pretty big block.

#32 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 12 February 2011 - 03:53 PM

...an example of talk I hear far too often, like "immortality is just around the corner."

Who on god's green earth is saying this? Lately there seem to be a lot of threads attempting to disabuse us of such notions, despite the fact that we don't hold them. I guess it gets down to what the definition of 'corner' is. If immortality is just around the corner, it must be a pretty big block.


I probably should've used the word "heard" instead of "hear." because you're right, I have noticed a greater amount of realism lately. But as for the actual members that I was referring to, I don't feel entirely comfortable with naming names, and really, I didn't have just the members of Imminst.org in mind.

#33 mia22

  • Guest
  • 52 posts
  • 19
  • Location:California

Posted 13 February 2011 - 08:41 PM

Rol82,
Just curious how do you know that chromodynamic girl is a dirty old man? Or is that just an assumption you're making given his/her posts?

Edited by mia22, 13 February 2011 - 08:43 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert

#34 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 13 February 2011 - 09:18 PM

Rol82,
Just curious how do you know that chromodynamic girl is a dirty old man? Or is that just an assumption you're making given his/her posts?


He provides a link to his blog, which provides a link to his Facebook page, which besides being a largely transparent act of deceit, clearly states that he graduated from Stanford in 1968, and works for a company that doesn't exist. But he has left our dear community, so really, I don't want to waste anymore thoughts on his nonsense. Indeed, I probably shouldn't have even brought the subject up.

Edited by Rol82, 13 February 2011 - 09:19 PM.


#35 mia22

  • Guest
  • 52 posts
  • 19
  • Location:California

Posted 14 February 2011 - 01:45 AM

Rol82,
Just curious how do you know that chromodynamic girl is a dirty old man? Or is that just an assumption you're making given his/her posts?


He provides a link to his blog, which provides a link to his Facebook page, which besides being a largely transparent act of deceit, clearly states that he graduated from Stanford in 1968, and works for a company that doesn't exist. But he has left our dear community, so really, I don't want to waste anymore thoughts on his nonsense. Indeed, I probably shouldn't have even brought the subject up.


Well that's interesting in a very weird sort of way. I had serious doubts that Chromodynamic girl was an eighteen year old girl based on his(apparently) posts, but I guess it wouldn't be impossible either that someone that young would be familiar with so many different fields(physics, philosophy, economics, etc.) if they had absolutely no social life.....
Anyways thanks for the reply.

#36 chris w

  • Guest
  • 740 posts
  • 261
  • Location:Cracow, Poland

Posted 14 February 2011 - 02:48 PM

Chromo only reinforces my suspicion that a woman Libertarian is as rare as a white crow. You meet a female An Cap on the net, and it's a guy too, pretty nasty to boot.

#37 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,386 posts
  • 240
  • Location:Italy

Posted 14 February 2011 - 04:03 PM

I think there is only now and the universe does not remember the moment you occupied that same space, for all it cares, you never occupied it.

Interesting, I think that all instances of time in the time-space are equally real and "now" is just a demonstration of our limited point-of-view.

#38 solbanger

  • Guest
  • 215 posts
  • 11

Posted 15 February 2011 - 03:43 AM

...

"It's Just A Theory"
...
Which means if you just state that in the year 2525 Professor XYZ came up with the "Take THAT, Einstein!" theory of FTL travel, you still have a problem. You have to explain how the TTE theory allows FTL flight while still giving the same answers that relativity theory did for all those experiments it confirmed. Experiments that were accurate to quite a few decimal points.


This may not please your Star Trek super-space god dreams, but as Richard Feynman said, "You don't like it? Too bad! Move to another Universe!"


The most enlightened entry that this old guy---posing as a young Asian girl---contributed to this thread.


Not really. People (even scientists!) have a tendency to ignore data that they can't explain, or that clashes with existing theory.
There's probably a whole lot of BS we haven't detected yet scattered all over various fields.

True, but what I object to is the careless treatment of ideas---especially those with a basis in science fiction---that are by general consensus, falsely deemed by some to be either close to our grasp or within the realm of scientific possibility. At the same time, though, I urge the undaunted examination of the unknown, and believe that the possibilities of science are boundless. But I have greater faith in ideas that can be reconciled with science, and that are more immediate to the practical possibilities of scientific discovery.

Hi for one thing: I don't think that this discussion is in the right thread. This is more like Other conversations or Philosophy, because let's face it this is just a fruitless discussion on Rol's opinion of your average sci fi fan. Sure they have a propensity towards flights of fancy. Sure it's the OP's attempt to explain that everyone, EVERYONE, should lower expectations to the poster's years-tested acceptance level when speaking about scientific discoveries, but c'mon, it does not belong in rational physics discussions. More like sociology or pop psychology. I mean since we're discussing the true definition of "magic" compared to science when is the poster going to break out chapters from the necronomicon to support their case? :)

Second: I believe the OP really posted the vague topic as a way to lay out their pretensions and have everyone agree with him/her. The argument amounts to "these people expect too much. I think they're dumb." As if he or she is the expert on what constitutes real scientific possibility versus idiocy. I've got to repeat what others have been saying, what is "magic" is simply relative to experience. Take the New Guinea cargo cults for example. An airplane is an obvious mechanical device to Americans, but if you were to go to New Guinea in the 60's you would find that the natives were mesmerized by these metal gods that buzzed overhead. So much so they would construct effigies out of straw in an attempt to call them down. As far as the tribesmen were concerned our science was magic.

The OP is probably as much a naive sci-fi fan as the people he or she is criticizing but wants to differentiate him or herself from the rabble in this weak attempt at discourse. Maybe the poster was exercising their logic muscles, but nevertheless, this very approach reveals the poster as much an amateur as the navel-gazers he despises. Why bother come on these boards and rattle an empty cage? If you lack optimism in science then what are you even DOING here? Sorry but who the heck are YOU to judge what the future holds? Rather than spit out one-note, unfounded (magical?) opinions, offer some construction.

Well, if you knew more about the dirty old man known as Chomodynamicgirl, you wouldn't have wasted the energy to ponder and compose. As for myself, maybe it would be easier to illuminate my feelings with an example of talk I hear far too often, like "immortality is just around the corner." But when I make comments like "science is boundless," it should be clear where my loyalties are in this debate.


Rol you simply can't write people - or science off like that. For all you know there exists a device lurking 2,000 years in our future that can bring people back at the touch of a button. Heck, you could be alive in the future using this novel tech. The same processes of conflict that brought you into being and gave you the ability to perceive will continue to work long after you perish. You yourself are just a composite of matter, a vast sea of pinpoints, that with the right computer can be annihilated and reformed like layering characters into a video game.

You simply lack the complexity to fathom such an outcome. I do agree that the concept of immortality as some people define it is quite limited and simply egomania in disguise. For instance, mention immortality and everyone imagines they'll essentially come back as the exception, as a superhuman superstar with their name in print, rather than assume that the tech would probably be well established by that point and their return almost unremarkable except to maybe their loved ones. (heck I think Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson will probably be brought back first by their fans!)

However immortality as you define it is a fragile strawman that you set up to only knock people down with because you bound yourself to the rules that you believe apply to us right here, now and forever. This is erroneous thinking. Immortality itself is defined several different ways. There's a whole lecture on imminst about the abstract nature of what immortality is, or could be to us. Although honestly most people do regard it as a variation on that ol' superhuman potion that'll give em a bigger d#@$ or nicer ti!$ than the next guy or gal.

This is why this topic is mostly philosophy.

#39 Rational Madman

  • Guest
  • 1,295 posts
  • 490
  • Location:District of Columbia

Posted 15 February 2011 - 11:44 PM

...

"It's Just A Theory"
...
Which means if you just state that in the year 2525 Professor XYZ came up with the "Take THAT, Einstein!" theory of FTL travel, you still have a problem. You have to explain how the TTE theory allows FTL flight while still giving the same answers that relativity theory did for all those experiments it confirmed. Experiments that were accurate to quite a few decimal points.


This may not please your Star Trek super-space god dreams, but as Richard Feynman said, "You don't like it? Too bad! Move to another Universe!"


The most enlightened entry that this old guy---posing as a young Asian girl---contributed to this thread.


Not really. People (even scientists!) have a tendency to ignore data that they can't explain, or that clashes with existing theory.
There's probably a whole lot of BS we haven't detected yet scattered all over various fields.

True, but what I object to is the careless treatment of ideas---especially those with a basis in science fiction---that are by general consensus, falsely deemed by some to be either close to our grasp or within the realm of scientific possibility. At the same time, though, I urge the undaunted examination of the unknown, and believe that the possibilities of science are boundless. But I have greater faith in ideas that can be reconciled with science, and that are more immediate to the practical possibilities of scientific discovery.

Hi for one thing: I don't think that this discussion is in the right thread. This is more like Other conversations or Philosophy, because let's face it this is just a fruitless discussion on Rol's opinion of your average sci fi fan. Sure they have a propensity towards flights of fancy. Sure it's the OP's attempt to explain that everyone, EVERYONE, should lower expectations to the poster's years-tested acceptance level when speaking about scientific discoveries, but c'mon, it does not belong in rational physics discussions. More like sociology or pop psychology. I mean since we're discussing the true definition of "magic" compared to science when is the poster going to break out chapters from the necronomicon to support their case? :)

Second: I believe the OP really posted the vague topic as a way to lay out their pretensions and have everyone agree with him/her. The argument amounts to "these people expect too much. I think they're dumb." As if he or she is the expert on what constitutes real scientific possibility versus idiocy. I've got to repeat what others have been saying, what is "magic" is simply relative to experience. Take the New Guinea cargo cults for example. An airplane is an obvious mechanical device to Americans, but if you were to go to New Guinea in the 60's you would find that the natives were mesmerized by these metal gods that buzzed overhead. So much so they would construct effigies out of straw in an attempt to call them down. As far as the tribesmen were concerned our science was magic.

The OP is probably as much a naive sci-fi fan as the people he or she is criticizing but wants to differentiate him or herself from the rabble in this weak attempt at discourse. Maybe the poster was exercising their logic muscles, but nevertheless, this very approach reveals the poster as much an amateur as the navel-gazers he despises. Why bother come on these boards and rattle an empty cage? If you lack optimism in science then what are you even DOING here? Sorry but who the heck are YOU to judge what the future holds? Rather than spit out one-note, unfounded (magical?) opinions, offer some construction.

Well, if you knew more about the dirty old man known as Chomodynamicgirl, you wouldn't have wasted the energy to ponder and compose. As for myself, maybe it would be easier to illuminate my feelings with an example of talk I hear far too often, like "immortality is just around the corner." But when I make comments like "science is boundless," it should be clear where my loyalties are in this debate.


Rol you simply can't write people - or science off like that. For all you know there exists a device lurking 2,000 years in our future that can bring people back at the touch of a button. Heck, you could be alive in the future using this novel tech. The same processes of conflict that brought you into being and gave you the ability to perceive will continue to work long after you perish. You yourself are just a composite of matter, a vast sea of pinpoints, that with the right computer can be annihilated and reformed like layering characters into a video game.

You simply lack the complexity to fathom such an outcome. I do agree that the concept of immortality as some people define it is quite limited and simply egomania in disguise. For instance, mention immortality and everyone imagines they'll essentially come back as the exception, as a superhuman superstar with their name in print, rather than assume that the tech would probably be well established by that point and their return almost unremarkable except to maybe their loved ones. (heck I think Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson will probably be brought back first by their fans!)

However immortality as you define it is a fragile strawman that you set up to only knock people down with because you bound yourself to the rules that you believe apply to us right here, now and forever. This is erroneous thinking. Immortality itself is defined several different ways. There's a whole lecture on imminst about the abstract nature of what immortality is, or could be to us. Although honestly most people do regard it as a variation on that ol' superhuman potion that'll give em a bigger d#@$ or nicer ti!$ than the next guy or gal.

This is why this topic is mostly philosophy.


Okay, but I think I'm clearly in the same camp as everyone here, and differ with the mainstream only on the questions of probability and proximity. And do we really have to make a huge issue about this difference, and scream apostate? Our evolution as a movement demands less rigid thinking, and consensus forming.

#40 the thing

  • Guest
  • 20 posts
  • 8
  • Location:Finland

Posted 18 February 2011 - 04:27 PM

The thing is that time travel relies on the past/future configuration of the universe to still exist, I doubt that it does. I think there is only now and the universe does not remember the moment you occupied that same space, for all it cares, you never occupied it.


You do know that time dilation has been empirically observed? It is also a common notion that information about previous states does not dissapear, it is only scrambled.

In Fabric of Realiy David Deutch had a pretty interesting description of time as sort of a block and how it is no different from any other dimension such as lenght or width.

Edited by the thing, 18 February 2011 - 04:31 PM.


#41 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 03 March 2011 - 07:51 AM


The thing is that time travel relies on the past/future configuration of the universe to still exist, I doubt that it does. I think there is only now and the universe does not remember the moment you occupied that same space, for all it cares, you never occupied it.


You do know that time dilation has been empirically observed? It is also a common notion that information about previous states does not dissapear, it is only scrambled.

In Fabric of Realiy David Deutch had a pretty interesting description of time as sort of a block and how it is no different from any other dimension such as lenght or width.


Of course I know "Time Dilation" was observed, so what? a slow down of movement, energy state changes does not mean that time exists. You don't say "time slows down" when you change the speed of some other object. All it means is that there is an external force related to gravity, acceleration, etc, that affects the speed things happen, the energy of things. It is far from saying "that means we can travel to the past, future" or that they even still exist.

My point is there is just one time. No future, no past. Just now.

Here is an idea, let's take your memory away, not just your memories, your ability to remember too. Imagine the world now. How will you act? based on what you are perceiving at any given moment alone, right? kinda like a dumb robot. You will still go for food when you're hungry because the sense of hunger keeps getting stronger, you won't remember you were hungry for an hour, but each second of that hour you will know you are hungry, each time at different level with no recollection of the past. Gathering food might be tricker though as you won't remember were you looked, but if you see it and recognize it, then you will still go to it cause you sense it any instant.

Now some might say "Well memory is like a sensor of time." as in, enabling you to sense that dimension or existence of time, like our eyes allowing us to sense the three dimensions of space. I'd say "well, maybe time does not exist and instead memory CREATES the sense of time and for us, time itself.".

See my point? In my opinion that's how the universe works. No recollection of past events, just the now. And for us no way to go back but we can always wait for the future (when it becomes now), sure with some tricks of slowing ourselves down you could call it time travel, but it's just a relative experience of motion.

Edited by Luna, 03 March 2011 - 07:58 AM.


#42 the thing

  • Guest
  • 20 posts
  • 8
  • Location:Finland

Posted 03 March 2011 - 02:08 PM

What would make the present configuration of "now" any more valid than any other future or past posibility of "now"? Why and where would the "now" be moving as it subjectivly seems to be moving? I dont think there is any movement of time and I think there are several "nows" instead of just one. The notion of time as a location of events (=dimension) makes much more sense than the psychological notion that there is a present that is flowing somewhere. This would imply that there is infact not really such a thing as the present, but a collection of moments and images on an axis of time, and each image has a thougth of the flowing of time, because of the memories of the past.

http://en.wikipedia....Putnam_argument
http://en.wikipedia....-dimensionalism
http://en.wikipedia....osophy_of_time)

Edited by the thing, 03 March 2011 - 02:11 PM.


#43 drus

  • Guest
  • 278 posts
  • 20
  • Location:?

Posted 03 March 2011 - 02:28 PM

obviously, of course science isn't magic! what exactly is the point of this thread?

#44 shifter

  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 05 March 2011 - 12:19 AM

Why are people getting irate over someone else's opinion on such a complex theory that NO ONE has the answers to? And then say 'In my opinion the universe works like this!'

I'm all for reading a discussion but some people take such things to close to heart it seems. Think about how small and insignificant you are compared the the infinite vastness and wonder of the universe and then come back and say your 'opinion' is not only correct, but worth 2 cents to everyone else who doesn't share it.

My 2 cents.... :p
  • like x 2

#45 drus

  • Guest
  • 278 posts
  • 20
  • Location:?

Posted 08 March 2011 - 03:16 PM

Why are people getting irate over someone else's opinion on such a complex theory that NO ONE has the answers to? And then say 'In my opinion the universe works like this!'

I'm all for reading a discussion but some people take such things to close to heart it seems. Think about how small and insignificant you are compared the the infinite vastness and wonder of the universe and then come back and say your 'opinion' is not only correct, but worth 2 cents to everyone else who doesn't share it.

My 2 cents.... :p


agreed, good post. more often than not, wisdom can be found in the simplest words.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users