Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Science hopes to change the past

You're welcome. Actually, Wayne, do you really think there's a place for the fine tuning analogy? Couldn't you dispense with it altogether? Wouldn't the universe with the requisite laws would have been sufficient?

(deleted duplicate)

Is an artist content with throwing paint on a canvass?

Would a parent be content with letting their child grow up in whatever way they want without parental guidance?

Sufficient? Yes. An act of love? Hardly.

Some primitive religions have very strange creation myths. In one of my favorites, the Creator literally farted the world.

In a universe like that, there would be no need of fine tuning. I personally prefer to think that God is more interested in us than in a fart.

w

"Is an artist content with throwing paint on a canvass?

Would a parent be content with letting their child grow up in whatever way they want without parental guidance?"

I would say (if it were given that I believed in God) that He embodied His will in the laws. That is indeed sufficient for all physical events through the history of the universe. As for His presence, and guidance, that would be experienced in spirit - perhaps you would say the "Holy Ghost", I don't know.

Moderators,

I think this thread should really be moved now to 'Not Quite'. Although I am fascinated by it and would love to join in, I do not want to be responsible for infecting the science board with a mixture of science/philosophy/theology. We have managed to keep it clean for quite some time now - as it should be.

Blacknad.

Blacknad's right. 'God' entered the discussion almost at the outset. Not surprising considering the subject.

Had I the power to do so I would ... but alas that power is reserved for the almighty (Kate).

I recommend the discussion continue here as gods and goddesses have a lousy track record for doing what we lowly humans think they should.

So ... to continue ... the question at the table is:
"Is an artist content with throwing paint on a canvas?"

And my response would be no. An artist would not be. But if you wish to posit a deity that is more than a human on steroids you need to assume more IQ points than that of a guy sitting in a single's bar an hour before closing time too.

And yet it is through artistic endeavors that I feel we most closely begin resemble the mind of God. (Of course, that's a romanticized view and not 'official' dogma of any kind.)

God is the ultimate scientist, but I think also the ultimate artist. If you think God doesn't have an artistic streak, take a look at an Arizona sunrise some time.

w

Wayne
"God is the ultimate scientist, but I think also the ultimate artist. If you think God doesn't have an artistic streak, take a look at an Arizona sunrise some time.

Let's remember that this speaks only to those who believe in God. Others will say something like "Cezanne was the greatest artist," and, "An Arizona sunset is one of nature's awesome beauties".

You have your religious opinions, and that's all they are to the atheist, no matter how you present them as fact.

Redewenur, let's not be pedantic.

You could very easily see the words "I think" in that sentence. How does that imply me stating fact?

And I've made it abundantly clear that I respect the beliefs of others, including atheists.

I even took the time to say that the opinion was not official dogma. How much more removed from stating fact could I have made my post?

But, for you, I have added a signature to my profile. Hopefully it will meet with your approval.

w

Pedantic. No. You stated as fact that God is the ultimate scientist. I stated the obvious - that you don't speak for atheists.

"But, for you, I have added a signature to my profile. Hopefully it will meet with your approval."

OK, Wayne, that's a little too aggressive for me. I'll leave you to it.

Okay, I guess I was feeling a little snarky. I'll remove the signature line. But I'm hoping that it made it's point: I cannot be expected to put disclaimers in every single statement that somebody might disagree with.

The post you were criticizing had a grand total of four sentences, and it had three qualifiers regarding that these were MY thoughts and opinions. Apparently, putting disclaimers into 75% of my statements and assuming that the reader would have the intellectual wherewithal to realize via context that I wasn't pushing religion as fact if I don't say it in the other 25% too isn't enough for you.

What's your problem?

w

Everybody takes your seats. Five minute time-out.

Thank you.

Now what was it we were discussing before the intermission?

The topic is: "Science hopes to change the past" and I see nothing in evidence, either in science or any other discipline, that would lead me to conclude that it ever has happened or ever will happen at the macroscopic level.

Exactly. Even if throngs of people in our future(s) are constantly changing the past on whatever scale you like, we will never ever see any evidence of it. Nor will we ever see it done. Because when it is done, the time line leading up to it being done is destroyed and so it never happens.

If we could sidestep the timeline and see it from the side (a la Flatfland-style), we might see a web of alternities with a plethora of changes being made all the time. But, from our position here in the timeline being effected, we can never notice the results.

Any such changes would be from timelines that we can never experience. They will be, to us, done in the same kind of places as the place electrons go to traverse over to the other side of the atom instantaneously.

From the confines of our timeline, those making the changes cannot and will not ever exist.

w

Wayne wrote:
"Exactly. Even if throngs of people in our future(s) are constantly changing the past on whatever scale you like, we will never ever see any evidence of it. Nor will we ever see it done. Because when it is done, the time line leading up to it being done is destroyed and so it never happens."

So how is that different from it never happening?

How do we distinguish the difference between what does not happen and what happens and can not be detected? Sounds like making a choice between 12 eggs or a dozen.

redewenur, sorry, I did not find the posts you mentined. More info about them would be helpful (e.g. what thread/topic).

Pasti. Go to the top of this column. Click on Forums or General Discussion. Go down what is then displayed to Not Quite Science. Click. Find Knock the Revs. I've just checked. The discussion about free will starts on page 6. finishes some pages later.

Oops! Sorry about that, Pasti!

I said, "...find your way back in this thread to posts from 15th-21st March..." - error.

Follow Terry's directions (above).

It's not that it can't be detected - it's that it never happened. The time and place where it will happen will never come into existence. Asking what that world is like is the same as asking what happened before the Big Bang.

w

Which is identical to saying it is impossible.

The outcome is the same.

Go with Occam's Razor.