| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
13 May 2004 05:06:05 AM |
| Object: |
Bertrand Russell |
Let's collaborate for peace
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1215082,00.html
Thursday May 13, 2004
The Guardian
It is easy, and indeed precedented, to view science as a tool for
hatred. Long before 5,000 commuters were injured on the Tokyo subway,
and before the word "anthrax" was whispered and feared, and even
before the first weapon of mass destruction was unleashed on
Hiroshima, Bertrand Russell foresaw the deadly potential of science.
In 1924 he concluded: "Science has not given men more self-control,
more kindliness, or more power of discounting their passions in
deciding upon a course of action ... Men's collective passions are
mainly evil; far the strongest of them are hatred and rivalry directed
towards other groups. Therefore at present all that gives men the
power to indulge their collective passions is bad. That is why science
threatens to cause the destruction of our civilisation ..."
Bertrand Russell
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22Bertrand%20Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bertrand+Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Bertrand%20Russell&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
.
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
17 May 2004 07:56:10 AM |
|
|
Peter van Velzen <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in message news:<7716bb89.0405161148.1498ec82@posting.google.com>...
Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news: HxtAo7.no@bath.ac.uk>...
david ford:
There is of course the possibility that ours is merely one out of
numerous universes, the whole collection of which conceivably could
have never begun to exist. However, I would suggest to you that the
second law of thermodynamics could be reasonably expected to exist in
any other universes, and would preclude the possibility of a
never-beginning-to-exist-yet-existing collection of universes.
The second law represents a statistcal phenomenon - and can be violated on
any scale you care to mention - so the conclusion above does not follow
logically.
Violating aa statistical phenomena on a universal scale would be a bit
improbable, unless there is some counteracting force.
If the [PvV]"counteracting force" is itself subject to the second law,
then its actions will fail overall to push back the effects of the
second law.
on the other hand I do not see why the second law of thermodynamics
would requiry a universe to have a beginnig.
The argument below has a _modus tollens_ structure ('in the mood of
denying': if p, then q; not q; therefore not p). Since the logical
structure is sound, if both premises are true, then the conclusion is
true. What, if anything, is wrong with either of the two premises in
this argument?:
Premise 1: If the universe was infinitely old, then it would have run
down by now in accord with the second law of thermodynamics.
Premise 2: The universe has not yet run down.
Conclusion: The universe is not infinitely old.
A universe with no
beginning seem to me just as probably as a universe without end.
Perhaps, until one begins to consider the arguments for the universe's
beginning to exist from the second law, and from the big bang theory.
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
And
the Big bang theory thus far would need our universe to be
inifinitally expanding.
Yes, it appears that the universe will keep on expanding (and not
undergo a big crunch), and suffer heat death in the distant future.
All the stars will burn out, and the universe will be a uniform,
extremely cold temperature.
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen, May 2004
Atheist#1107
Amstelveen (just South of Amsterdam)
The Netherlands (Aug 5, 1950)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter van Velzen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
24 May 2004 01:46:29 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.0405170503.2b614879@posting.google.com>...
Peter van Velzen <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote in message news:<7716bb89.0405161148.1498ec82@posting.google.com>...
Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news: HxtAo7.no@bath.ac.uk>...
david ford:
There is of course the possibility that ours is merely one out of
numerous universes, the whole collection of which conceivably could
have never begun to exist. However, I would suggest to you that the
second law of thermodynamics could be reasonably expected to exist in
any other universes, and would preclude the possibility of a
never-beginning-to-exist-yet-existing collection of universes.
The second law represents a statistcal phenomenon - and can be violated on
any scale you care to mention - so the conclusion above does not follow
logically.
Violating aa statistical phenomena on a universal scale would be a bit
improbable, unless there is some counteracting force.
If the [PvV]"counteracting force" is itself subject to the second law,
then its actions will fail overall to push back the effects of the
second law.
You miss the point here.
The second law of thermodynamics simple tells us, that all
circumstances being equal, molecules in a gas tend to get the same
temperature=velocity.
This is so because with great numbers random effects cancel each
other out, and apart from random effects the known laws of physics all
lead to more equality rather then less.
However, if there was a extra physical law - yet undiscovered - that
would lead to less equality between the molecules, than this would
lead to another outcome.
on the other hand I do not see why the second law of thermodynamics
would requiry a universe to have a beginnig.
The argument below has a _modus tollens_ structure ('in the mood of
denying': if p, then q; not q; therefore not p). Since the logical
structure is sound, if both premises are true, then the conclusion is
true. What, if anything, is wrong with either of the two premises in
this argument?:
Premise 1: If the universe was infinitely old, then it would have run
down by now in accord with the second law of thermodynamics.
Premise 2: The universe has not yet run down.
Conclusion: The universe is not infinitely old.
I do not think premise 1 is correct.
The second law of thermodynamics only tells you the energy tends to
get nmore equal between molecules. It does not say any finite amount
of time would be enough to make them totally equal.
A universe with no
beginning seem to me just as probably as a universe without end.
Perhaps, until one begins to consider the arguments for the universe's
beginning to exist from the second law, and from the big bang theory.
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
And
the Big bang theory thus far would need our universe to be
inifinitally expanding.
Yes, it appears that the universe will keep on expanding (and not
undergo a big crunch), and suffer heat death in the distant future.
All the stars will burn out, and the universe will be a uniform,
extremely cold temperature.
Well, actually 3 degrees Kelvin.
Problem is however:
1. If we accept the bing bang theory, when the universe was about
300.000.000 years old, it was supposed to have a radius that was equal
to or smaller than the schwarzschild radius of it's mass. That is: It
was a black hole by definition. If so: How can it not be a black hole
today?
2. De expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating, which
requires an extra law of physics, as yet not known.
For me, the theory has to many contradiction.
Like the bible:)
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen, May 2004
Atheist#1107
Amstelveen (just South of Amsterdam)
The Netherlands (Aug 5, 1950)
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlexB" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
25 May 2004 01:04:35 PM |
|
|
Yes, it appears that the universe will keep on expanding (and not
undergo a big crunch), and suffer heat death in the distant future.
All the stars will burn out, and the universe will be a uniform,
extremely cold temperature.
Well, actually 3 degrees Kelvin.
It is wrong. The average T of expanding Universe will drop below 3K and will
be approaching 0K asymptomatically.
1. If we accept the bing bang theory, when the universe was about
300.000.000 years old, it was supposed to have a radius that was equal
to or smaller than the schwarzschild radius of it's mass. That is: It
was a black hole by definition. If so: How can it not be a black hole
today?
You misunderstand the issue. Is it that common in Europe to imbibe physical
knowledge that superficially? The Universe had a very small radius (Plank
length) at the moment of the Big Bang but then began to expand very rapidly,
doubling in size about 100 times in much less than a second (Inflation).
After that it slowed down a bit but still kept expanding with a speed of
light. It was very hot and opaque since it had been filled with plasma. Then
around 300,000 years after the BB the temperature dropped down to about
3,000F and the Universe became transparent for gamma rays. Nothing
remarkable happened at 300M years. The Schwarzchild radius of the Universe
does not make any sense. It is not a black hole.
2. De expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating, which
requires an extra law of physics, as yet not known.
People are talking about the dark energy to explain it. There is an opinion
that the pressure of the CMB is responsible for the accelerating expansion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter van Velzen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
26 May 2004 11:30:17 AM |
|
|
"AlexB" <alexB@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<d8-dnTUj0OoyES7dRVn-gQ@comcast.com>...
Yes, it appears that the universe will keep on expanding (and not
undergo a big crunch), and suffer heat death in the distant future.
All the stars will burn out, and the universe will be a uniform,
extremely cold temperature.
Well, actually 3 degrees Kelvin.
It is wrong. The average T of expanding Universe will drop below 3K and will
be approaching 0K asymptomatically.
1. If we accept the bing bang theory, when the universe was about
300.000.000 years old, it was supposed to have a radius that was equal
to or smaller than the schwarzschild radius of it's mass. That is: It
was a black hole by definition. If so: How can it not be a black hole
today?
You misunderstand the issue. Is it that common in Europe to imbibe physical
knowledge that superficially? The Universe had a very small radius (Plank
length) at the moment of the Big Bang but then began to expand very rapidly,
doubling in size about 100 times in much less than a second (Inflation).
After that it slowed down a bit but still kept expanding with a speed of
light. It was very hot and opaque since it had been filled with plasma. Then
around 300,000 years after the BB the temperature dropped down to about
3,000F and the Universe became transparent for gamma rays. Nothing
remarkable happened at 300M years. The Schwarzchild radius of the Universe
does not make any sense. It is not a black hole.
Sorry but if the part of the universe we can see today had the same
mass we wittness today, (and why shouldn't it?)
and it's radius was no more then 300,000,000 lightyears, then
the escape velocity at that distance would be greater that the speed
of light.
That would mean that part of the - possible infinite - universe, would
be a black hole. having the same mass inside 150,000,000 lightyears
would make for several black holes within that mass.
it is simple arithmetic, and nobody has been able to explain to me,
what is wrong about it.
I also do not understand why noone but me seems to see it as a
problem.
2. De expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating, which
requires an extra law of physics, as yet not known.
People are talking about the dark energy to explain it. There is an opinion
that the pressure of the CMB is responsible for the accelerating expansion.
CMB ????
Common mysterious balony?
Of course not, but I have no idea what it does mean.
Anyway by all known laws of physics the expansion - by itself
inexplanable - should be decellerating.
Crazy theorie:
If the universe is treated as a - finite - black hole,
we can expect matter to fall into it.
Somewhere I read that space was nothing but a attribute of matter.
More matter would then mean more space (Schwarzschild radius jumping
backwards),
and what we no think of as accelerating expansion, may just be that.
A Schwarzschild radius jumping backwards.
Well all I can say for sure.
I for one do not understand a bit,
and there is still a bit left, that I suspect the experts don't
understand.
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen, May 2004
Atheist#1107
Amstelveen (just South of Amsterdam)
The Netherlands (Aug 5, 1950)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter van Velzen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
26 May 2004 11:33:40 AM |
|
|
"AlexB" <alexB@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<d8-dnTUj0OoyES7dRVn-gQ@comcast.com>...
Yes, it appears that the universe will keep on expanding (and not
undergo a big crunch), and suffer heat death in the distant future.
All the stars will burn out, and the universe will be a uniform,
extremely cold temperature.
Well, actually 3 degrees Kelvin.
It is wrong. The average T of expanding Universe will drop below 3K and will
be approaching 0K asymptomatically.
Isn't that violating the FIRST law of thermodynamics?
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen, May 2004
Atheist#1107
Amstelveen (just South of Amsterdam)
The Netherlands (Aug 5, 1950)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
25 May 2004 07:55:34 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Peter van Velzen <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:
[...]
1. If we accept the bing bang theory, when the universe was about
300.000.000 years old, it was supposed to have a radius that was equal
to or smaller than the schwarzschild radius of it's mass. That is: It
was a black hole by definition.
No -- you are using an oversimplified (i.e., wrong) definition of a
black hole. See the sci.physics FAQs,
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html
Steve Carlip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter van Velzen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
26 May 2004 11:49:22 AM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<c90qe6$5ua$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
In talk.origins Peter van Velzen <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:
[...]
1. If we accept the bing bang theory, when the universe was about
300.000.000 years old, it was supposed to have a radius that was equal
to or smaller than the schwarzschild radius of it's mass. That is: It
was a black hole by definition.
No -- you are using an oversimplified (i.e., wrong) definition of a
black hole. See the sci.physics FAQs,
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html
Steve Carlip
Thank you, the first sign, that someone else has asked the question
too.
Of course the answer goes wrong from the very beginning.
"The short answer is that the big bang gets away with it because it is
expanding rapidly near the beginning and the rate of expansion is
slowing down."
Why that should explain anything escapes me totally, but moreover, we
now know, the rate of expansion is instead accelerating.
"The Schwarzschild limit does not apply to rapidly expanding matter."
Again not explanation that I can understand, and no formula to
explain, how rapid the expantion should be, and what that speed would
do to the Schwarzschild radius.
"Outside a white hole event horizon there are world lines which can be
traced back into the past indefinitely without ever meeting the white
hole singularity whereas in a FRW cosmology all worldline originate at
the singularity."
Has it been proven that in our universe there is no matter that does
not originate in the bing-bang singularity ??
The text actually goes on to say NO and ends like this:
"Perhaps the truth is even stranger. In other words, who knows?"
So there we go again. Nobody knows.
Thanks anyway.
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen, May 2004
Atheist#1107
Amstelveen (just South of Amsterdam)
The Netherlands (Aug 5, 1950)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
28 May 2004 11:21:22 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins Peter van Velzen <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:
carlip@no-physics-spam.ucdavis.edu wrote in message news:<c90qe6$5ua$1@woodrow.ucdavis.edu>...
In talk.origins Peter van Velzen <pbamvv@worldonline.nl> wrote:
1. If we accept the bing bang theory, when the universe was about
300.000.000 years old, it was supposed to have a radius that was equal
to or smaller than the schwarzschild radius of it's mass. That is: It
was a black hole by definition.
No -- you are using an oversimplified (i.e., wrong) definition of a
black hole. See the sci.physics FAQs,
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html
Thank you, the first sign, that someone else has asked the question
too.
Of course the answer goes wrong from the very beginning.
No, it doesn't. But it might have been too complicated -- it tries
to explain a number of things at once. So let me give you the simple
version.
The *definition* of a black hole is that it's a region surrounded
by an event horizon. The *definition* of an event horizon is that
it's a dividing surface between things that can escape to infinity
and things that can't. The Universe does not have an event horizon,
because there is no ``outside'' that anything can escape to. Therefore
the Universe is not a black hole.
Your statement that
[...] it was supposed to have a radius that was equal
to or smaller than the schwarzschild radius of it's mass. That is:
It was a black hole by definition.
is simply an incorrect definition of a black hole. I assume you got
it from some popularization of general relativity. You need to keep
in mind that popularizations are generally also oversimplifications,
and that sometimes the details that they leave out really matter.
Steve Carlip
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
16 May 2004 07:44:04 PM |
|
|
Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:<HxtAo7.no@bath.ac.uk>...
In talk.origins david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote or quoted:
Actually both. I largely quoted something that I had written earlier
in response to Aaron.
There is of course the possibility that ours is merely one out of
numerous universes, the whole collection of which conceivably could
have never begun to exist. However, I would suggest to you that the
second law of thermodynamics could be reasonably expected to exist in
any other universes, and would preclude the possibility of a
never-beginning-to-exist-yet-existing collection of universes.
The second law represents a statistcal phenomenon - and can be violated on
any scale you care to mention - so the conclusion above does not follow
logically.
You are being silly. I will follow suit.
Molecules' motion represents a statistical phenomenon. It is possible
that all of the molecules in a concrete statue's hand will happen to
move in one direction at a particular moment, and then move in the
opposite direction the next moment, resulting in the concrete hand
"waving." The claim that concrete hands can't wave is an erroneous
claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Tyler" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
19 May 2004 12:36:02 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote or quoted:
Tim Tyler < > wrote [...]:
In talk.origins david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote or quoted:
[...]
There is of course the possibility that ours is merely one out of
numerous universes, the whole collection of which conceivably could
have never begun to exist. However, I would suggest to you that the
second law of thermodynamics could be reasonably expected to exist in
any other universes, and would preclude the possibility of a
never-beginning-to-exist-yet-existing collection of universes.
The second law represents a statistcal phenomenon - and can be violated on
any scale you care to mention - so the conclusion above does not follow
logically.
You are being silly. [...]
No - it was a serious comment.
If there are no temporal constraints, violations of the second
law of thermodynamics on arbitrarily large scales are practically
inevitable.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ Remove lock to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
16 May 2004 10:25:29 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote in message news:<HxtAo7.no@bath.ac.uk>...
In talk.origins david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote or quoted:
Actually both. I largely quoted something that I had written earlier
in response to Aaron.
There is of course the possibility that ours is merely one out of
numerous universes, the whole collection of which conceivably could
have never begun to exist. However, I would suggest to you that the
second law of thermodynamics could be reasonably expected to exist in
any other universes, and would preclude the possibility of a
never-beginning-to-exist-yet-existing collection of universes.
The second law represents a statistcal phenomenon - and can be violated on
any scale you care to mention - so the conclusion above does not follow
logically.
You are being silly. I will follow suit.
Molecules' motion represents a statistical phenomenon. It is possible
that all of the molecules in a concrete statue's hand will happen to
move in one direction at a particular moment, and then move in the
opposite direction the next moment, resulting in the concrete hand
"waving." The claim that concrete hands can't wave is an erroneous
claim.
It's not at all clear that the motions of molecules in a solid would be
statistically independent, as the molecules are somewhat bound to
each other.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
15 May 2004 07:24:34 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 May 2004 12:54:41 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<g1jpc.52399$iF6.4785687@attbi_s02>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <G1bpc.12461$6f5.981460@attbi_s54>, Dixit, AKA Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, <dixit@nospam.net> wrote:
df:
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world had a
beginning at all"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=887u3v%24pe3%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Russell, Bertrand. 1957. _Why I Am Not a Christian: And other
Essays on Religion and Related Subjects_ (NY: Simon and
Schuster), 266pp. On 7, in the chapter "Why I Am Not a
Christian":
There is no reason why the world could not have come into
being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any
reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to
the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need
not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause.
Russell's preface is dated 1957. When he allowed "There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all" to be
reprinted, perhaps he inconveniently forgot about the big bang
model.
There is no reason to suppose that the last big bang was the beginning
of things than there is to suppose that the last big crunch was the end
of things, is there? 8^)
There is even less reason to suppose that anything preceding a big bang.
Nobody knows, do they? Why not a big crunch?
And the big crunch model is passe ...
Increasing rate of expansion does seem to be the picture coming out of
the Hubble data. The fact is that if anything can have always existed,
it might as well be the universe as your hypothetical first cause. That
alone rules out your hypothetical first cause.
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world [universe]
had a beginning at all"
Now the Hubble data supports that statement.
There is of course the possibility that ours is merely one out of
numerous universes, the whole collection of which conceivably could
have never begun to exist. However, I would suggest to you that the
second law of thermodynamics could be reasonably expected to exist in
any other universes, and would preclude the possibility of a
never-beginning-to-exist-yet-existing collection of universes.
And yet you seem to want to put forward an infinite omnipotent being. Is
your god bound by thermodynamics, and if not, can you give any reason why
not that doesn't amount to handwaving?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
16 May 2004 07:32:19 PM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncaddiv.1v8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Sat, 15 May 2004 12:54:41 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<g1jpc.52399$iF6.4785687@attbi_s02>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <G1bpc.12461$6f5.981460@attbi_s54>, Dixit, AKA Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, <dixit@nospam.net> wrote:
df:
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world had a
beginning at all"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=887u3v%24pe3%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Russell, Bertrand. 1957. _Why I Am Not a Christian: And other
Essays on Religion and Related Subjects_ (NY: Simon and
Schuster), 266pp. On 7, in the chapter "Why I Am Not a
Christian":
There is no reason why the world could not have come into
being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any
reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to
the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need
not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause.
Russell's preface is dated 1957. When he allowed "There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all" to be
reprinted, perhaps he inconveniently forgot about the big bang
model.
There is no reason to suppose that the last big bang was the beginning
of things than there is to suppose that the last big crunch was the end
of things, is there? 8^)
There is even less reason to suppose that anything preceding a big bang.
Nobody knows, do they? Why not a big crunch?
And the big crunch model is passe ...
Increasing rate of expansion does seem to be the picture coming out of
the Hubble data. The fact is that if anything can have always existed,
it might as well be the universe as your hypothetical first cause. That
alone rules out your hypothetical first cause.
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world [universe]
had a beginning at all"
Now the Hubble data supports that statement.
There is of course the possibility that ours is merely one out of
numerous universes, the whole collection of which conceivably could
have never begun to exist. However, I would suggest to you that the
second law of thermodynamics could be reasonably expected to exist in
any other universes, and would preclude the possibility of a
never-beginning-to-exist-yet-existing collection of universes.
And yet you seem to want to put forward an infinite omnipotent being. Is
your god bound by thermodynamics, and if not, can you give any reason why
not that doesn't amount to handwaving?
The intelligent entity or entities responsible for the creation of the
material world/ the world of physics in the Big Bang
creation-out-of-nothing event was non-material in nature. The second
law of thermodynamics applies to the material world and material
entities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
16 May 2004 08:03:04 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins, (david ford) wrote in
<b1c67abe.0405161639.36849b43@posting.google.com>:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncaddiv.1v8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
....
And yet you seem to want to put forward an infinite omnipotent being. Is
your god bound by thermodynamics, and if not, can you give any reason why
not that doesn't amount to handwaving?
The intelligent entity or entities responsible for the creation of the
material world/ the world of physics in the Big Bang
creation-out-of-nothing event was non-material in nature. The second
law of thermodynamics applies to the material world and material
entities.
Could you tell me what the Big Bang was, why the second law of
thermodynamics applied (please use the equations that held before Planck
time), and how a non-material being could affect a material world?
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
17 May 2004 06:55:56 AM |
|
|
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<344ga05aug847kb9bp00a9kb1drsf6j75h@4ax.com>...
In talk.origins, (david ford) wrote in
<b1c67abe.0405161639.36849b43@posting.google.com>:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncaddiv.1v8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
...
And yet you seem to want to put forward an infinite omnipotent being. Is
your god bound by thermodynamics, and if not, can you give any reason why
not that doesn't amount to handwaving?
The intelligent entity or entities responsible for the creation of the
material world/ the world of physics in the Big Bang
creation-out-of-nothing event was non-material in nature. The second
law of thermodynamics applies to the material world and material
entities.
Could you tell me what the Big Bang was,
Yes.
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
why the second law of
thermodynamics applied (please use the equations that held before Planck
time), and how a non-material being could affect a material world?
No, and no.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Jensen" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
19 May 2004 10:18:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:55:56 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
(david ford) wrote in
<b1c67abe.0405170402.4a3f7c0f@posting.google.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<344ga05aug847kb9bp00a9kb1drsf6j75h@4ax.com>...
In talk.origins, (david ford) wrote in
<b1c67abe.0405161639.36849b43@posting.google.com>:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncaddiv.1v8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
...
And yet you seem to want to put forward an infinite omnipotent being. Is
your god bound by thermodynamics, and if not, can you give any reason why
not that doesn't amount to handwaving?
The intelligent entity or entities responsible for the creation of the
material world/ the world of physics in the Big Bang
creation-out-of-nothing event was non-material in nature. The second
law of thermodynamics applies to the material world and material
entities.
Could you tell me what the Big Bang was,
Yes.
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
That is an erroneous answer.
why the second law of
thermodynamics applied (please use the equations that held before Planck
time), and how a non-material being could affect a material world?
No, and no.
So, you cheerfully pontificate, but score a Zero on a short quiz
designed to verify your understanding of the material.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
24 May 2004 03:55:44 PM |
|
|
David Jensen wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2004 11:55:56 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
(david ford) wrote in
<b1c67abe.0405170402.4a3f7c0f@posting.google.com>:
David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message news:<344ga05aug847kb9bp00a9kb1drsf6j75h@4ax.com>...
In talk.origins, (david ford) wrote in
<b1c67abe.0405161639.36849b43@posting.google.com>:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncaddiv.1v8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
...
And yet you seem to want to put forward an infinite omnipotent being. Is
your god bound by thermodynamics, and if not, can you give any reason why
not that doesn't amount to handwaving?
The intelligent entity or entities responsible for the creation of the
material world/ the world of physics in the Big Bang
creation-out-of-nothing event was non-material in nature. The second
law of thermodynamics applies to the material world and material
entities.
Could you tell me what the Big Bang was,
Yes.
The Search for a Loophole to the Beginning of the Universe
in the Big Bang and to the Seeming-Design of Physics
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005292327160.25513-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
That is an erroneous answer.
why the second law of
thermodynamics applied (please use the equations that held before Planck
time), and how a non-material being could affect a material world?
No, and no.
So, you cheerfully pontificate, but score a Zero on a short quiz
designed to verify your understanding of the material.
It was ever thus with theologs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
24 May 2004 08:19:49 PM |
|
|
In article <2rtsc.926$eT4.343@attbi_s54>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com> wrote:
why the second law of
thermodynamics applied (please use the equations that held before Planck
time), and how a non-material being could affect a material world?
No, and no.
So, you cheerfully pontificate, but score a Zero on a short quiz
designed to verify your understanding of the material.
It was ever thus with theologs.
And anti-theologs, who, if anything, understand less.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
16 May 2004 10:04:57 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:32:19 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncaddiv.1v8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Sat, 15 May 2004 12:54:41 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<g1jpc.52399$iF6.4785687@attbi_s02>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <G1bpc.12461$6f5.981460@attbi_s54>, Dixit, AKA Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, <dixit@nospam.net> wrote:
df:
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world had a
beginning at all"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=887u3v%24pe3%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Russell, Bertrand. 1957. _Why I Am Not a Christian: And other
Essays on Religion and Related Subjects_ (NY: Simon and
Schuster), 266pp. On 7, in the chapter "Why I Am Not a
Christian":
There is no reason why the world could not have come into
being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any
reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to
the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need
not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause.
Russell's preface is dated 1957. When he allowed "There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all" to be
reprinted, perhaps he inconveniently forgot about the big bang
model.
There is no reason to suppose that the last big bang was the beginning
of things than there is to suppose that the last big crunch was the end
of things, is there? 8^)
There is even less reason to suppose that anything preceding a big bang.
Nobody knows, do they? Why not a big crunch?
And the big crunch model is passe ...
Increasing rate of expansion does seem to be the picture coming out of
the Hubble data. The fact is that if anything can have always existed,
it might as well be the universe as your hypothetical first cause. That
alone rules out your hypothetical first cause.
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world [universe]
had a beginning at all"
Now the Hubble data supports that statement.
There is of course the possibility that ours is merely one out of
numerous universes, the whole collection of which conceivably could
have never begun to exist. However, I would suggest to you that the
second law of thermodynamics could be reasonably expected to exist in
any other universes, and would preclude the possibility of a
never-beginning-to-exist-yet-existing collection of universes.
And yet you seem to want to put forward an infinite omnipotent being. Is
your god bound by thermodynamics, and if not, can you give any reason why
not that doesn't amount to handwaving?
The intelligent entity or entities responsible for the creation of the
material world/ the world of physics in the Big Bang
creation-out-of-nothing event was non-material in nature. The second
law of thermodynamics applies to the material world and material
entities.
Your handwaving is noted.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@hotmail.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
17 May 2004 07:21:46 AM |
|
|
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncagbbv.1ns.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 17 May 2004 00:32:19 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrncaddiv.1v8.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Sat, 15 May 2004 12:54:41 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<g1jpc.52399$iF6.4785687@attbi_s02>...
Virgil wrote:
In article <G1bpc.12461$6f5.981460@attbi_s54>, Dixit, AKA Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, <dixit@nospam.net> wrote:
df:
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world had a
beginning at all"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=887u3v%24pe3%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Russell, Bertrand. 1957. _Why I Am Not a Christian: And other
Essays on Religion and Related Subjects_ (NY: Simon and
Schuster), 266pp. On 7, in the chapter "Why I Am Not a
Christian":
There is no reason why the world could not have come into
being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any
reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to
the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need
not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause.
Russell's preface is dated 1957. When he allowed "There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all" to be
reprinted, perhaps he inconveniently forgot about the big bang
model.
There is no reason to suppose that the last big bang was the beginning
of things than there is to suppose that the last big crunch was the end
of things, is there? 8^)
There is even less reason to suppose that anything preceding a big bang.
Nobody knows, do they? Why not a big crunch?
And the big crunch model is passe ...
Increasing rate of expansion does seem to be the picture coming out of
the Hubble data. The fact is that if anything can have always existed,
it might as well be the universe as your hypothetical first cause. That
alone rules out your hypothetical first cause.
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world [universe]
had a beginning at all"
Now the Hubble data supports that statement.
There is of course the possibility that ours is merely one out of
numerous universes, the whole collection of which conceivably could
have never begun to exist. However, I would suggest to you that the
second law of thermodynamics could be reasonably expected to exist in
any other universes, and would preclude the possibility of a
never-beginning-to-exist-yet-existing collection of universes.
And yet you seem to want to put forward an infinite omnipotent being. Is
your god bound by thermodynamics, and if not, can you give any reason why
not that doesn't amount to handwaving?
The intelligent entity or entities responsible for the creation of the
material world/ the world of physics in the Big Bang
creation-out-of-nothing event was non-material in nature. The second
law of thermodynamics applies to the material world and material
entities.
Your handwaving is noted.
What is [AC]"handwaving"?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
15 May 2004 03:07:42 AM |
|
|
In article <g1jpc.52399$iF6.4785687@attbi_s02>,
Dixit <dixit@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <G1bpc.12461$6f5.981460@attbi_s54>, Dixit, AKA Septic Capon,
the Simple Pimple, <dixit@nospam.net>
wrote:
Bertrand Russell
http://news.google.com/news?q=%20%22Bertrand%20Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr
=&
ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Bertrand+Russell%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie
=U
TF-8&tab=nw&sa=N
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=Bertrand%20Russell&safe=images&ie=U
TF
-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world had a
beginning at all"
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=887u3v%24pe3%241%40nnrp1.deja.com
Russell, Bertrand. 1957. _Why I Am Not a Christian: And other
Essays on Religion and Related Subjects_ (NY: Simon and
Schuster), 266pp. On 7, in the chapter "Why I Am Not a
Christian":
There is no reason why the world could not have come into
being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any
reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.
The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to
the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need
not waste any more time upon the argument about the First
Cause.
Russell's preface is dated 1957. When he allowed "There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all" to be
reprinted, perhaps he inconveniently forgot about the big bang
model.
There is no reason to suppose that the last big bang was the beginning
of things than there is to suppose that the last big crunch was the end
of things, is there? 8^)
There is even less reason to suppose that anything preceding a big bang.
Nobody knows, do they? Why not a big crunch?
And the big crunch model is passe ...
Increasing rate of expansion does seem to be the picture coming out of
the Hubble data. The fact is that if anything can have always existed,
it might as well be the universe as your hypothetical first cause. That
alone rules out your hypothetical first cause.
It only rules out the necessity of a first cause, not the possibility of
one. And the Hubble data does not so much oppose the possibility of a
big bang as oppose the possibility of a big crunch.
1957 Bertrand Russell: "no reason to suppose that the world [universe]
had a beginning at all"
Now the Hubble data supports that statement.
Look again.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "VoiceOfReason" |
|
| Title: Re: Bertrand Russell |
13 May 2004 06:39:35 PM |
|
|
(maff) wrote in message news:<18510aff.0405130212.21ebe17c@posting.google.com>...
Let's collaborate for peace
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,13228,1215082,00.html
Thursday May 13, 2004
The Guardian
It is easy, and indeed precedented, to view science as a tool for
hatred. Long before 5,000 commuters were injured on the Tokyo subway,
and before the word "anthrax" was whispered and feared, and even
before the first weapon of mass destruction was unleashed on
Hiroshima, Bertrand Russell foresaw the deadly potential of science.
In 1924 he concluded: "Science has not given men more self-control,
more kindliness, or more power of discounting their passions in
deciding upon a course of action ... Men's collective passions are
mainly evil; far the strongest of them are hatred and rivalry directed
towards other groups. Therefore at present all that gives men the
power to indulge their collective passions is bad. That is why science
threatens to cause the destruction of our civilisation ..."
Seeing as he was writing a mere 6 years after the horror of the 1st
World War, I can see him being pretty disillusioned with what man can
do to himself. But I disagree with the idea that science threatens
anything. It's man's misuse of science that is the danger, not
science itself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
