What Religion is Book?
POSTED BY: Lukasaurus
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 16:38
VIEWED: 16439
PAGE 3 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by thoreau:
Our scientific community is already bordering on the stupidity of organized religion (no flame intended, and in case it isn't obvious I'm talking about the way scientists of today believe in earlier scientists theories as if they were holy law.
Not true, at least for physicists... mostly, there all the string theorists
. In the Physics, community they believe in what can be proven first theoretically, second experimentally. And if only the first, it is considered highly suspect.Basically, physicists go with whatever works now until it is proven wrong or needs fine tuning. Then the next best thing is used. It's been that way for a long time. Religions on the other hand will hold onto what they think is right pretty much no matter what, based on faith.
Please note that my comparison goes only so far as to try to explain that these are mutually exclusive areas. I'd also like to say that neither is necessarily wrong as they both attempt to explain different things for the most part.
Physics: How do things work? What are they made of fundamentally? etc.
Religion: Where do we come from? How should I behave? etc.
I really don't think that one should lump all "scientists" into one pile.
Quote:
Originally posted by thoreau:
Someday someone has to finally stand up and say "hey, Einstein was wrong about a few things"...
They have. Look up the EPR paradox. The question isn't totally answered yet, but, people have basically decided that it isn't really a paradox at all. That it's just some of that really messed up quantum stuff.
I checked out all this Physics stuff with my wife (who happens to have her Ph.d. in Theoretical Physics and is working on things similar to the EPR paradox) and she says I'm not talking out of my
One other note, the physicists know that Einstein was wrong many times over, but, the general public does not. They still think he's a hero. I think we stumbled on a problem here
----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A few words from The Hat--
1) I think Book's religion HAS to be a form of Christianity, simply because of the Bible (River goes through it, speaking about some of the Bible stories--Noah's Ark, etc). Also, the carpenter reference is too casual, I agree, to be a red herring.
That being said, i don't think it's a form of Christianity that exists now, much like Christianity NOW isn't the way it was 1000 years ago, and so on backward.
2) The general PERCEPTION of science and scientists is, find an answer that you like, and stick to it until death. Whether this is true or not, it's the perception, and I tend to agree partially. It seems that many people of science tend to hate looking for new answers that would possibly thwart their own theories and accomplishments. My opinion, not necessarily correct (much like my spelling)
3) There's no guarantee here that "Firefly" even really follows our own reality. Christianity might have developed differently in this world. The carpenter's name might have been Juan, or Bob, or Esmerelda for all we know... similar, but differing in details.
I like to think that Joss created this entire world, and as such, he's sort of a carpenter... maybe he's the reference?
Or, then again, maybe I don't have the slightest idea what the hell I'm talking about...
--The Hat
***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's certainly debatable, although I don't want to debate it.
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
Have we ruled out Book being a Mormon? They're Christian.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BadgersHat:
2) The general PERCEPTION of science and scientists is, find an answer that you like, and stick to it until death. Whether this is true or not, it's the perception, and I tend to agree partially. It seems that many people of science tend to hate looking for new answers that would possibly thwart their own theories and accomplishments. My opinion, not necessarily correct (much like my spelling)
I have found that the general publics perception of science is pretty much what you say. Unfortunately, it couldn't be further from the truth.
The fact is that people in science are continually looking for these new answers or verifications of what they think. Since everyone wants there personal theory to be true it takes alot to convince people that yours is true. Thus the community has developed it's own BS detector by its very nature.
Basically, if it is accepted as true for now it has already gone through alot of rigorous checking, most of the time. There are exceptions, after all we are human. But those exceptions are found out later and then taken back.
Of course, anyone working in any field wants there theory to be it or at least work. But, when someone comes along and proves it wrong they just suck it up and move on. Doesn't mean they are happy about it though.
I think that this perception is just a very telling sign that we as a society have not educated ourselves to the point that we know anything about what goes on in the scientific community. Sure people learn some stuff in high school but that EPR paradox I mentioned is well... old. Meaning 1935 with subsequent work in 1964.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
That stuff this old isn't at least known by someone in any circle of friends, IMHO, is proof of out poor education now adays with regard to science. Which, of course, leads to this misinformation, etc.
----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SigmaNunki wrote:
Quote:
I checked out all this Physics stuff with my wife (who happens to have her Ph.d. in Theoretical Physics and is working on things similar to the EPR paradox) and she says I'm not talking out of my (posterior?)
So, she's a hardline Copenhagenist? Einstein-Podolski-Rosen said quantum entanglement of complementary particle pairs violates the speed of light, meaning that an effect can be caused faster than the information 'light cone' of the cause can travel. This leads to the paradox of effect preceding cause in the 'classical' universe. Bell's Theorem and subsequent experimentation proved it.
Still, wish her luck for me finding the postulated graviton, let alone Einstein's guide wave or the tachyon. String theory, or some variant thereof is the most promising route to resolving the mutual exclusion of Relativity and quantum theory. Until someone can devise a working theory of quantum gravity -- which thus far only returns infinities -- neither theory can be thought of as complete or correct.
Still, amazing isn't it that scientists do hold onto their faith in their theories, even though there are glaring inconsistencies?
Respectfully,
zoid
_________________________________________________
"River? I thought she was a sweet girl. Of course, we were all sure she was crazy, too."
- Inara Reynolds, Secretary of Ecumenical Affairs
from A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I can guarantee you that Book is not a Mormon.
Early: You ever been raped, Kaylee?
Kaylee: You know, it's funny you should mention that... ever heard of the Fox network?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since this is starting to pass my understanding of physics I sent an email to the wife and I present this slightly edited reply.
First off, I am pleased to see that someone is interested in how scientists think and work and the validity of there work. Too many people have blind faith in what scientists say either/or are completely dismissive.
Well, information cannot travel faster but you can have velocities faster than the speed of light.
There are alternatives to string theory, namely loop quantum gravity. Both have pros and cons. Funny thing is that only string theorists themselves claim that string theory is the most promising approach and the journalists seem to love it.
As for glaring inconsistencies. They don't hang onto them. It's all they got. But, they continue to work to fix them.
zoid:
> So, she's a hardline Copenhagenist?
Not at all. Just because I'm working on related stuff, it does not mean that I agree with what they say. If I did, what reason would I have to do more research?
zoid:
> Einstein-Podolski-Rosen said quantum entanglement of
> complementary particle pairs violates the speed of
> light, meaning that an effect can be caused faster
> than the information 'light cone' of the cause can
> travel. This leads to the paradox of effect preceding
> cause in the 'classical' universe. Bell's Theorem and
> subsequent experimentation proved it.
There is no such thing as complementary particle pairs. They do not violate the speed of light (what is that suppose to mean?). But the meaning is right. The light cone does not travel. Bell's theorem and subsequent experiments proved, in their regime of applicability, that quantum theory is correct (I hope that is what you meant). But today, the problem with information being spread faster than light is not considered the problem anymore. It is a very serious problem, and some people are working on how to define the "paradox" exactly, if there is one, and how it could be resolved. On the other hand, there are many physicists who don't care as they consider this philosophy.
> Still, wish her luck for me finding the postulated
> graviton, let alone Einstein's guide wave or the
> tachyon.
EPR and related problems have nothing to do with the graviton. The guide wave was "invented" by Bohm, not Einstein. The tachyon is from a completely different area of physics. I would appreciate if you would not make sarcastic remarks on other peoples work. In fact you don't even know what exactly I'm working on never mind being in a position to evaluate said work.
> String theory, or some variant thereof is the
> most promising route to resolving the mutual
> exclusion of Relativity and quantum theory. Until
> someone can devise a working theory of quantum
> gravity -- which thus far only returns infinities --
> neither theory can be thought of as complete or
> correct.
As I said above, only string theorists believe that their theory is the only way, and there are alternatives. They do *not* only return infinities, in fact, there is a lot of progress, but there are indeed problems with infinities. And of course neither theory can be thought of as complete (it cannot be, refer to Goedel) or correct, since this is science, which always tries to improve, and not religion, which sticks to a fixed system of truths.
The whole point of science is to improve on someone else's work and thus by definition we can never achieve a perfect theory. This typically makes the people doing the work very humble as they are very aware of the limitations of what they create.
> Still, amazing isn't it that scientists do hold onto
> their faith in their theories, even though there are
> glaring inconsistencies?
Yes, and that is exactly the reason why science has made so much progress in the past decades. People who believed in the beauty of their theories have contributed a lot (e.g. Dirac). The crucial point is to know how long you should believe in your theory and when you should give it up. T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As long as we're on religion now...
Last week,some friends and I were at dinner, talking about Easter when I said. "That's when Christ comes out of his tomb,and if he sees his shadow there'll be six more weeks of winter."
when they got done laughing they told me I was going to hell for that one.
Don't blame me, I'm just the new guy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SigmaNunki:
Please thank your wife for her candid reply. Assure her that it was never my intent to make "sarcastic remarks" about her work, and have no clue where she would've gotten such an idea. My understanding of the current state of research into producing a graviton is that it's a dim prospect at best, even though quantum mechanics requires it as a force carrier of gravity; and which "force" it cannot adequately explain otherwise. That is -- speaking as plainly as I can -- quantum mechanics cannot currently explain gravity, an effect every human is familiar with, without the postulated graviton or introducing 'normalization' into equations to avoid returning infinities (any number divided by zero returns an infinity).
On the other hand, quantum mechanics is very good at explaining the world of the very small. It is so good in fact, that were it wrong, computers wouldn't work, nor cell phones, nor a thousand other devices of modern life that we take for granted. Relativity is as inept at describing the very small, as QM is at describing anything except the very small.
My understanding is that a "particle pair" is one whose constituent particles are "entangled": if one has spin 'X' the other has spin 'Y'. As weird as it may sound to the layman (myself), these particle pairs can and have been produced in the laboratory. According to quantum theory, since these particles are irrevocably tied, knowing the state of one particle leads to 100% certainty of the state of the other.
The problem is that Neils Bohr's 'Copenhagenist' QM assures us that there is no state until a measurement is taken. Taken to extremes, there is no particle, only the particle's wave function. There is only a probability that the particle will be found to be in one specific state or the range of other possible states. So, according to EPR (as I -- the layman -- understand it) if we capture one of the paired particles without measuring it (ala Schroedinger's cat), while allowing its entangled 'twin' to travel halfway to the other side of the universe; then measure the captured particle's spin, the probability waves of both particles collapse simultaneously, even though they are separated by billions of light years. That is: Particle A1's wave function collapses, fixing it's spin (or other 'complementary' attribute) as 'X'; this collapse somehow simultaneously 'informs' the other particle A2 and it's spin becomes 'Y' even though its light cone (which doesn't travel, no, it propagates, but why be so picky?) of information cannot 'travel' faster than light.
Einstein was arguing that the individual particles were not probabilistic after all -- as QM insisted -- but were in fact in fixed states all along ("God does not play dice with the universe").
My opinions are my own. I do not read periodicals, except occasionally Scientific American. In addition to sci-fi (which authors generally avoid QM because it's stranger than any fiction), I also read general science novels, 'dumbed down' to my level. Some of these, related to physics, include:
"The Elegant Universe" - Brian Greene
"The Meaning of Relativity" - Albert Einstein
"God's Equation" - Amir Aczel
"Quantum Reality" - Nick Herbert
"The End of Time" - Julian Barbour
"The Dancing Wu Li Masters" - Gary Zukav
"A Brief History of Time" - Stephen Hawking
Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace" and "Introduction to Superstrings and M-Theory" (which I think I've got loaned out to someone, since it's not on the shelf)
Again, please thank your wife for her responses. If she gets more time, and wouldn't mind, I would appreciate any illumination on the current state of her research (no equations, please) in as plain English as she can manage.
If, on the other hand, she has come to the belief that I'm a moron (or journalist?), I'll understand and labor on in my present state of ignorance, taking the word of the authors I've mentioned, as I am able to comprehend them...
Respectfully,
zoid
____________________________________
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As currently we don't live in the same city and it being late, email is the only option for contacting her. I'll pass it on and post the reply when I get one.
Until then.
----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME