dust Posted September 11, 2014 It would seem likely that this has been discussed here before, but being a fairly wide topic, I'm not really sure how to find it... How do you talk to people who disregard any idea or discussion that hasn't been approved by Stephen Hawking? To give them a name, perhaps 'scientific absolutists' -- people who disregard anything that isn't expressed in purely modern scientific language, or isn't strictly in line with current scientific thinking (as if it is the be-all and end-all of human knowledge). i.e. if it's not about bosons, it's nonsense I suppose I consider myself atheist (if I had to label it..I've never believed in "God"), and I have always been interested in science -- and rarely if ever had reason to doubt scientific findings. But there are so many proud atheists out there who are so devout in their dedication to / belief in science and modern technology that their dogma / behaviour isn't a far cry from that of Christian or Muslim fundamentalists, and trying to get them to see that they probably don't know everything they think they know feels just as strenuous as discussing the Bible with a creationist. How to talk to them? Not "convert" them, but get them to understand their arrogance? To look at things from another perspective? I'm sure many have experienced difficulty with this...? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
forestofclarity Posted September 11, 2014 I had an acting teacher once give us a lesson on communication. He asked: "Who here is a liberal?" Some hands went up. "Who's a conservative?" Some other hands went up. "Who is a Christian?" Some hands went up. "Who is an atheist?" Some other hands went up. Then he said, "Who here has been in love?" Every hand went up. "Who has ever suffered pain?" Every hand went up. He said that we can talk along our differences, or we can talk along our similarities. 8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted September 11, 2014 Tell them that every world view so far had to be revised one day. So is it scientific to think that we are close to the ultimate answers? If they think so nevertheless, remind them that science can't tell what roughly 90% of the matter in the Universe consists of. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daeluin Posted September 11, 2014 Lines cannot be used to describe what is between the lines. People can try, to a degree, but will find the lines are always interfering with what happens between the lines this way. To truly understand what lies between the lines requires being between the lines yourself. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zanshin Posted September 11, 2014 How to talk to them? Not "convert" them, but get them to understand their arrogance? To look at things from another perspective? I'm sure many have experienced difficulty with this...? I know what you mean, but I don't understand it either. Looking up at the sky or even looking into a quantum aspects of a simple speck of dust is mind boggling, so much more complex than our intellect can process. So many things we couldn't understand 100 years ago are clear now, but still so much we don't know. Neurology is just in its infancy. How can we understand everything with our brains, but we don't really fully understand how our brains work or even what or where consciousness is? How about acupuncture? Studies have shown it works, we don't know why. How about virtue, ethics, philosophy, altruism? Subjective things can't be measured, sure there are the social sciences, but those are awfully soft and squishy. More I learn about science, more I find the world a place full of wonders that people are just starting to try to understand a little bit. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silent thunder Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) Alan Watts approaches addresses this so succinctly for me... Edited September 11, 2014 by silent thunder 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted September 11, 2014 How do you talk to people who disregard any idea or discussion that hasn't been approved by Stephen Hawking? Hey. Even Stephen has made mistakes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ya Mu Posted September 11, 2014 Just smile really big and radiate calmness energetics - works no matter who/what/where. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beyonder Posted September 12, 2014 (edited) It would seem likely that this has been discussed here before, but being a fairly wide topic, I'm not really sure how to find it... How do you talk to people who disregard any idea or discussion that hasn't been approved by Stephen Hawking? Generally speaking? With my mouth. To give them a name, perhaps 'scientific absolutists' -- people who disregard anything that isn't expressed in purely modern scientific language, or isn't strictly in line with current scientific thinking (as if it is the be-all and end-all of human knowledge). i.e. if it's not about bosons, it's nonsense I suppose I consider myself atheist (if I had to label it..I've never believed in "God"), and I have always been interested in science -- and rarely if ever had reason to doubt scientific findings. But there are so many proud atheists out there who are so devout in their dedication to / belief in science and modern technology that their dogma / behaviour isn't a far cry from that of Christian or Muslim fundamentalists, and trying to get them to see that they probably don't know everything they think they know feels just as strenuous as discussing the Bible with a creationist. How to talk to them? Not "convert" them, but get them to understand their arrogance? To look at things from another perspective? I'm sure many have experienced difficulty with this...? Could you really call it "arrogance", though? People who hold scientific findings to be absolutes generally have a poor understanding of the meta-scientific issues at play; "Truth" and claims regarding such issues aren't the domain of any scientific discipline. Such issues are the domain of epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy. Moreover, scientifc theories are conjectural in nature, and are always up for revision. While Hawking might have railed against philosophers of science a while ago, general scientific operations are perfectly in line with the problem of induction; falsified theories are thrown into the dustbin, while verified theories are never conclusively held as such. Further experimentation might invalidate previous findings, and specific experiments are set up to persue such possibilities, in the case of verified theories. This doesn't take away from several structural problems like paradigmatic relativity, a consequence of taking Kuhns work, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" seriously, or the impossibility of permanent verification due to the problem of induction, as outlined by Popper in his "Conjectures and Refutations". Note that I'm not saying that science is useless. Far from that. But the intracies of a communal empiricist effort should be understood before making any absolute claims based on an undertaking which is in it's fundaments opposed to such dogmatism. Edited September 14, 2014 by beyonder 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slim Posted September 12, 2014 I suppose it's fundamentalism then that gets in the way, whether religious or scientific. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Protector Posted September 12, 2014 Science minded here, just ten posts in and I don't want to live on this planet anymore 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
laozu Posted September 14, 2014 Here is one thing that physicists don't think about much: The only means open to them to observe natural phenomena are their five senses. Why does mankind have those five senses (sight, feel, smell, touch, hearing)? Quite likely for survival, as most things which threaten our survival impacts one or more of them in one way or another. It seems quite likely that the vast majority of natural phenomena has little influence on mankind's survival, and so much of these phenomena are likely totally unknown to us. But that does not mean that this unknown phenomena does not affect some of the things which we can sense. The implication of this is that Science is not playing with a full deck: that there is no way they can come up with a unified theory of everything, no matter how many ad hoc variables they might add in "string theory" or in attempted explanation of their "big bang" theory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silent thunder Posted September 14, 2014 Hey. Even Stephen has made mistakes. he's also changed his mind... sure mark of intelligence and wisdom to be able to change your thinking about something in the face of new information or new understanding... 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) he's also changed his mind... sure mark of intelligence and wisdom to be able to change your thinking about something in the face of new information or new understanding... As far as I know he only changed his mind regarding the question whether black holes evaporate one day or not. Talking about BHs, there is the theory that the whole universe is one and that everything that ever happens in it is recorded in its two-dimensional surface. Hello akasha chronicle? This is an example how scientific thinking is approaching mystical thinking. But they are not very aware of it, generally speaking. Two years ago, I attended a congress on which Roger Penrose presented his CCC theory according to which the universe all turns into light after an incredible number of years and is then reborn. I went to the audience's microphone and said that I see an analogy to Hinduism and to the Kabbalah. A colleague of Roger's replied that they wouldn't mind my drawing parallels to "religion" but that such considerations were outside their scope. Later, another attendant came to me who was there hoping for a scientific answer regarding a spiritual experience he had once made. I told him: "Spirit is not part of this picture." (And directed him to an alternative physicist.) Edited September 14, 2014 by Michael Sternbach 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted September 14, 2014 Two years ago, I attended a congress on which Roger Penrose presented his CCC theory according to which the universe all turns into light after an incredible number of years and is then reborn. Is that the Big Crunch theory? Actually, I prefer that over the Cold Death that many speak of. To not have a cold death we are going to have to slow down the expansion of the universe until we have reached a point of reversion. Tough job. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) No disrespect to you guys intended but, beyond anyone who is getting a living from professionally speculating on this physics and related 'bangy' stuff; who really gives a flying feck? At what point does it matter? ( pun intended). OP-wise... Why in the world would anyone wish to discuss stuff like this with anyone else? Imagine some poor sap buttonholed at a party by someone wanting to bend their ear about what we chat on here. They'd pretty soon be looking over one's shoulder for an escape route. Edited September 14, 2014 by GrandmasterP Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) Is that the Big Crunch theory? Actually, I prefer that over the Cold Death that many speak of. To not have a cold death we are going to have to slow down the expansion of the universe until we have reached a point of reversion. Tough job. Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) is not the same as either of the two theories you mention. Penrose argues that after about 10100 years, all the matter in the expanding universe will have turned into light. In such a universe, space and time become meaningless, i.e. they cease to exist or become infinite. This state is at once the foundation for another Big Bang - henceforth the game starts all over. Did you get it? While this leaves me with open questions regarding the role of Spirit and the higher-dimensional universes that I believe ours is embedded in, I do find certain aspects of this theory very thought-provoking. As I mentioned on that congress, this concept brings to mind Hinduistic cosmology according to which, after an unspeakable number of years, the universe regresses into a state of primeval chaos (pralaya) whereupon it is born anew. Another parallel can be seen in the Hebrew Kabbalah, where that state beyond existence is called en soph aur (infinite light). In Daoist terms, you could identify the state of zero-time and zero-space with the Wu chi. Edited September 14, 2014 by Michael Sternbach 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Mar-Vell Posted September 14, 2014 ... Roger Penrose is a quite brilliant man. ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted September 14, 2014 Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) is not the same as either of the two theories you mention. Penrose argues that after about 10100 years, all the matter in the expanding universe will have turned into light. In such a universe, space and time become meaningless, i.e. they cease to exist or become infinite. This state is at once the foundation for another Big Bang - henceforth the game starts all over. Did you get it? Yep. I got it. But I'm not buying. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GrandmasterP Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) Well we'll know eventually I suppose. Time flies! Edited September 14, 2014 by GrandmasterP 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silent thunder Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) Michael Sternbach said:As far as I know he only changed his mind regarding the question whether black holes evaporate one day or not. Talking about BHs, there is the theory that the whole universe is one and that everything that ever happens in it is recorded in its two-dimensional surface. Hello akasha chronicle? This is an example how scientific thinking is approaching mystical thinking. But they are not very aware of it, generally speaking. Two years ago, I attended a congress on which Roger Penrose presented his CCC theory according to which the universe all turns into light after an incredible number of years and is then reborn. I went to the audience's microphone and said that I see an analogy to Hinduism and to the Kabbalah. A colleague of Roger's replied that they wouldn't mind my drawing parallels to "religion" but that such considerations were outside their scope. Later, another attendant came to me who was there hoping for a scientific answer regarding a spiritual experience he had once made. I told him: "Spirit is not part of this picture." (And directed him to an alternative physicist.) Yea, as far as I know Hawking only had that one big public change of mind... But how many times does someone have the integrity to change their mind on that scale, about something they've published in a widely popular book and decades of interview responses? As for Spirit not being part of the picture... I can't agree with that one... I can't find a single thing, conceivable or not, that isn't spiritual, or rather, doesn't have a spiritual aspect. But that's just my experience. Edited September 14, 2014 by silent thunder Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dust Posted September 14, 2014 Alan Watts approaches addresses this so succinctly for me... Alan addresses everything well! I originally used the terms "prickles" and "goo" in the OP, but worried that many people wouldn't know exactly what I was talking about Science minded here, just ten posts in and I don't want to live on this planet anymore Just being on this site shows that you're not quite the type I was talking about... Though I too am not... convinced... by a lot of the things I read on TTB No disrespect to you guys intended but, beyond anyone who is getting a living from professionally speculating on this physics and related 'bangy' stuff; who really gives a flying feck? You don't find it interesting? Even how it all relates to Tao? Why in the world would anyone wish to discuss stuff like this with anyone else? Imagine some poor sap buttonholed at a party by someone wanting to bend their ear about what we chat on here. They'd pretty soon be looking over one's shoulder for an escape route. Originally I posted because I had had a long conversation with an old, close friend. We talked over drinks, for much of an evening, about all sorts of things, and the conversation (d)evolved into discussion about human nature, the nature of reality, quantum physics, etc. I'm not a big talker when I meet most people face to face, but have never been able to stay away from a good discussion about philosophy/science/art/politics etc I would love for my friend, and some other people I know, to be able to understand a bit more about my beliefs/perspective on life. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silent thunder Posted September 14, 2014 No disrespect to you guys intended but, beyond anyone who is getting a living from professionally speculating on this physics and related 'bangy' stuff; who really gives a flying feck? At what point does it matter? ( pun intended). OP-wise... Why in the world would anyone wish to discuss stuff like this with anyone else? Imagine some poor sap buttonholed at a party by someone wanting to bend their ear about what we chat on here. They'd pretty soon be looking over one's shoulder for an escape route. I don't really give a feck... but I do enjoy it. It's at the very least... a feck-ton better than watching tv... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michael Sternbach Posted September 14, 2014 Yea, as far as I know Hawking only had that one big public change of mind... But how many times does someone have the integrity to change their mind on that scale, about something they've published in a widely popular book and decades of interview responses? As for Spirit not being part of the picture... I can't agree with that one... I can't find a single thing, conceivable or not, that isn't spiritual, or rather, doesn't have a spiritual aspect. But that's just my experience. Yes, it certainly took courage and scientific integrity for Hawking to confess that he thinks he was wrong about black holes. Penrose would have preferred that he didn't because he needs Hawking's original theory for supporting CCC, so he doesn't agree with his change of mind. As to everything belonging to Spirit, I agree with you. That's why I see my scientific interests as interwoven with my spiritual quest. But many a modern physicist doesn't make this connection. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voidisyinyang Posted September 14, 2014 interesting thread but you gotta look at the fundamental difference in Western math compared to the Tai Chi - I go into this in my blog post http://innersoundqigong.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-devils-interval-and-pre-established.html quantum Fourier Uncertainty is the opposite extreme of yin-yang-Emptiness. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
