h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Math:



No mathematician or scientist has proved that multiple realities exist. They are required to make their theoretical equations work.

Multiple realities still are fantasy...in the real world.



There probably is and it tends to be far more 'mundane' than any thing a religion makes up as an explantion.

Though I really like the 'mundane' explanations that make sense and are backed up by proof.

And I don't take mathematical proofs of multiple realities as proof.

Hi Eddie

I am assuming here that you are qualified in quantum physics or the higher echelons of mathematics. No? Oh, then you have same problem as me in understanding what "they blither on about".

Understanding, in any field, comes from study. Until we have conducted that study we are but ignorant fools. Whether we choose to accept the findings of those at the top of their fields often is a 'leap of faith'.

What you are constantly asking me to do is to reduce my thirty years of experience and study into a single proof, and then you complain that I do not speak "in any kind of language that I can understand".

I am not asking you for a leap of faith at all. Nor am I asking you to believe anything I say. I don't think I am cleverer than you, or in any way special, but I have spent my time in a field that is alien to yours.

You could use the same argument against me if I was to spend time trying to explain the audit requirements of TS16949:2002 with regards to the special characteristics of surface mount soldering in an automotive environment. When I look at a solder joint on a PCB I see things that you, not being a J-Standard assessor, cannot.

Just because you do not understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Clarke or Asimov (can't remember which) once said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". Well, given the advances since that quote was made just about every bit of technology in our daily lives is essentially magic to the majority of its users. They have no idea how it works, they just plug it in, press the 'on' button and watch Neighbours.

They could learn how it works, if they were willing to spend a few years in study, but they don't, they just leap across the faith gap.

You are hung up on the god thing. It doesn't matter what I or my kin say, or how we try to explain it, you have convinced yourself that anything that includes sentient beings other than man is simply fantasy.

I don't know if your 'intellectual' prejudice is really rational or based upon early experiences with the abrahamic religions, which you constantly try to lump druidry with.

I have always been honest enough to explain that as most of my experiences are subjective I may be deluded, but that after thirty years of looking I cannot find any reason for them not to be true.

You see a bush, a gardener sees a Prunus Spinosa from which can be taken berries to flavour preserves and gin, an ornithologist sees the favoured perch of the 'butcher bird' or Shrike, I see a blackthorn that has a host of folk and spiritual connotations, and has a spirit that I can perceive. Each type of understanding depends upon a level of study and a method of perception.

I thinke we are nearing the point at which we will have to agree to disagree.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi R101

"Multiple realities still are fantasy...in the real world."

Er, no they are not. If multiple realities exist they will continue to exist even if we cannot yet prove it to our satisfaction.

What I was trying to point out was that every day our scientists and mathematicians push back the boundaries of what is known. Much of what we know now was fantasy only half a century ago.

Unfortunately as science dleves ever deeper into the mysteries and truths of our universe the explanations are liklely to get less and less mundane. I expect, therefore, your dissatisfaction to increase

"And I don't take mathematical proofs of multiple realities as proof."

I'm really glad you don't head up a major research lab or university then, or we'd still be using valves and steam engines.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

'Clarke or Asimov (can't remember which)'

'Twas Clarke.

With the wealth of information outlets now this saying should have an addition:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic...but only if you can't be bothered to out how the technology actually *does* work"

....because if it works there will be an explanation and there should be an explanation that us mortals can understand and be satisfied with to give the level of understanding that makes the technology into 'an invention' rather than 'magic'.




No, you do not need a leap of faith. Just a good enough explanation of how it actually works.

No, Math. You utterly misunderstand the difference between the 'leap of faith' that it takes to believe that a river is a goddess and the *taking on trust* that it requires to accept the validity of Quantum Mechanics. This is a difference I latched on to, aged about 12, in an RE class.

Now I agree that I am, personally, no Quantum Mechanic. However, I have the word of many Quantum Mechanics that they could - if I had the time - take me through the whole process, step-b-step, in such away that they could demonstrate certain results that would inevitably demonstrate the validity of the quantum model.

With druidry, on the other hand - accepting your repeated comments that I should first make the effort to study an appropriate course (although I note that you haven't; apparently you've just made it all up for yourself ) - the leap I can't for the life of me make is "Why on earth would I want to study something that sounds like such a load of twaddle?"

Here's the difference. The quantum mechanic could *show* me step 1 at the very least. Say with a laser beam and a diffraction grating. And you could show me enlarged photos of good and bad solder joints with circles and arrows revealing their salient features. Oh - and you could also give me PCBs which do and don't work.

Now show me evidence which might pique my interest in River Godesses and I might be surprised enough to take you seriously and engage in druidic study. I'm afraid I need something more than "Blackthorns are symbolically important" - which sounds to my ears merely a fancy-schmancy way of saying "I like sloe gin."

Hell, at least with a technologically-advanced society, I'd be able to see some *results* from their magic.



(and, yes, multiple realities are merely hypothesised. They are a mathematical model which may *or may not* fit reality. It's certainly too early to be suggesting that fairies might live there.)

>>"I am assuming here that you are qualified in quantum physics or the higher echelons of mathematics. No? Oh, then you have same problem as me in understanding what "they blither on about"."

Thing is, it is not a leap of faith to consider that there are mechanisms in science by which to analyse hypotheses, by which sceptical people can conclude the hypotheses do or don't accord with reality.
It is not the faith in a single scientist of whatever ability that makes people prone to believe them, it is either an analysis of what they are saying, or faith in the abilities of numerous others who would be prepared to speak up if they thought that something didn't make sense.
In the more esoteric areas of physics, it is clear that there are both competing suggestions of how reality works *and* a fairly general skepticism about which (if any) ideas may actually be correct.

>>"You could use the same argument against me if I was to spend time trying to explain the audit requirements of TS16949:2002 with regards to the special characteristics of surface mount soldering in an automotive environment. When I look at a solder joint on a PCB I see things that you, not being a J-Standard assessor, cannot."

>>"Just because you do not understand it doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

A pretty odd argument there. It's evident that solder joints exist, and not remotely surprising that there are quality criteria in various uses of such joints.

Were you to claim to be a guinea-pig rectal dimension inspector who toured pet-shops checking that the creatures measured up to EU standard ABCD-12345, you'd be much less likely to be believed.

Were the planet known to be populated by various groups of people claiming they each had some special understanding of soldering practices, chances are that each group would be treated rather skeptically by anyone not a member until they had explained why their ideas had merit. If there's only one standard (or a group of very similar international standards), it seems fairly likely that the standards have some rational basis in reality, at least in terms of avoiding defective products, (unless some less rational rules have been imposed by some particular body.

>>" Well, given the advances since that quote was made just about every bit of technology in our daily lives is essentially magic to the majority of its users. They have no idea how it works, they just plug it in, press the 'on' button and watch Neighbours."

>>"They could learn how it works, if they were willing to spend a few years in study, but they don't, they just leap across the faith gap."

To have an expectation that the technology is worth using, they don't need 'faith' in anything other than maybe its continued usability over time. If it clearly does work now, that it will work tomorrow is a reasonable rational conclusion, provided one doesn't exceed its operating constraints, or fail to supply needed consumables (power, water, soap tablets, etc.

I don't think it *is* 'essentially magic' to anyone who thinks that it is likely rationally explicable to people who have the inclination to want to find out and the ability to understand.

Were some advanced alien spacecraft to land tomorrow, how many people would think it ran on magic (apart maybe from people with a leaning towards that kind of [supernatural] belief).
Were seemingly telepathic aliens to walk out of the ship, how many people would think they're 'really' telepathic, compared to the numbers who would assume there was some hidden technological assist?

Does anyone else get the feeling that a certain resident Druid wants to have his cake and eat it too? I mean, Druidism isn't supernatural, it's just devoted to, concerned with, worshipful of natural forces/entities/stuff that science hasn't explained yet.


Is that a religion or a partiularly ecstatic high school physics class? If it's just natural phenomena we've not explained yet, why is it a religion? Why not worship dark energy?


And, on the subject of religion as science-not-yet-investigated:


Before Copernicus and Newton, planetary motion was unexplained by science. Yet anyone could look up from night to night and notice that Jupiter moved annoyingly about. And any group of people could look up and agree on the location of Jupiter in that night's sky.

Somehow I don't think one could get a bunch of people (without coaching) to agree on much of anything about a river spirit.

I think this quote from the physicist Schrodinger is rather apt at this point. Both sides of the fence may claim it supports their view. Me, I just think it's rather


The task is not so much to see what no one yet has seen, but rather to think what no one yet has thought about that which everybody sees.
                                                                 Erwin Schrödinger


Oh and hi Math. You're one of the lovliest theists on h2g2.

"Why not worship dark energy?"

I think I'm going to start woshipping hydrophobicity.

Heathen!

Ah HA! I should have known it along. You must be from the dark cult of hydrophilicity! A curse on you *and* you hydrogen bonding!

Math's hydrophilic. He likes rivers.

Oh...and Anhaga's post...

Brilliant!

From now on I shall always picture druids playing with Wheatstone bridges.

Potholer exclaimed:

"Heathen!"

--

Another one?

Who?

Where?

--

Jez

That exchange about hydrogen bonds just made taking advanced placement biology worthwhile.

An apt happening:

An item at about 7.50am this morning (28th Feb) on R4’s Today programme was about the new CERN particle accelerator which will recreate the conditions that (they believe) were present just after the ‘big bang’.

The scientist being interviewed said that there might be up to 10dimensions rather than the 4 we have now.

They know what they are looking for to indicate that their calculations are correct but THEY HAVE TO do the experiments to check their theories i.e. a mathematical proof without real trial data is not proof.

The interview should be on ‘Listen Again’.

Hi Eddie

"No, Math. You utterly misunderstand the difference between the 'leap of faith' that it takes to believe that a river is a goddess and the *taking on trust* that it requires to accept the validity of Quantum Mechanics."

Actually I don't, and I don't expect anyone to take what I say on faith. Think back and you will realise that I never have. I have only asked that people consider what I say and make their own minds up as to whether I am deluded or just possibly onto something.

"Now I agree that I am, personally, no Quantum Mechanic. However, I have the word of many Quantum Mechanics that they could - if I had the time - take me through the whole process, step-b-step, in such away that they could demonstrate certain results that would inevitably demonstrate the validity of the quantum model."

And you have my word that I could, if you had the time, take you through the whole process etc... I will admit, however, that I cannot guarantee the result of this, though I have seen it work with others. I am not a great teacher - though I have a friend who is.

"With druidry, on the other hand - accepting your repeated comments that I should first make the effort to study an appropriate course (although I note that you haven't; apparently you've just made it all up for yourself ) - the leap I can't for the life of me make is "Why on earth would I want to study something that sounds like such a load of twaddle?""

And that's your problem not mine. Unlike the monotheists I have no need (or divine duty) to proselytise, so at the end of the day I really don't care if you do pick up the challenge. But don't come to me saying "I don't understand it, so it must be baloney".

"Here's the difference. The quantum mechanic could *show* me step 1 at the very least. Say with a laser beam and a diffraction grating. And you could show me enlarged photos of good and bad solder joints with circles and arrows revealing their salient features. Oh - and you could also give me PCBs which do and don't work."

Bad example Most serious solder joint faults are invisible to the eye, and they may be intermittent, so one minute the PCB is dead and the next it is operational.

"Now show me evidence which might pique my interest in River Godesses and I might be surprised enough to take you seriously and engage in druidic study. I'm afraid I need something more than "Blackthorns are symbolically important" - which sounds to my ears merely a fancy-schmancy way of saying "I like sloe gin.""

Can't stand the stuff, makes me maudlin. Like the solder joint I can't just say "and here's a photo of me and The Mawddach". I'd actually have to take you out on the land a few times and spend some time helping you attune to the surroundings.

"Hell, at least with a technologically-advanced society, I'd be able to see some *results* from their magic."

I don't claim any magic. Something that always put's off the teen-witches who think druids are cool and can they have some of that. [An aside: They say "What spells can you cast?" - I say "None"; "Do you make potions?", "No, but I can mix a pretty mean Mead Colada"; "Can you summon the spirits of the dead?", "Nope"; "Do you know Emma Restall Orr", "Yes, a little" - they then swoon, before moving on to buy some more kohl, silver jewellery or crystals.]

"(and, yes, multiple realities are merely hypothesised. They are a mathematical model which may *or may not* fit reality. It's certainly too early to be suggesting that fairies might live there.) "

And again with the silly aside. I haven't suggested that faeries live in multiple realities, and to infer as much is bordering on the ad hominem. I have no idea what the possibility of multiple realities will reveal, but I find the idea interesting, don't you?

By the way there's nothing 'mere' about a hypothesis. Eugenics was a hypothesis and look where that led...

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi Potholer

"Thing is, it is not a leap of faith to consider that there are mechanisms in science by which to analyse hypotheses, by which sceptical people can conclude the hypotheses do or don't accord with reality."

Presently accepted reality you mean (?).

"It is not the faith in a single scientist of whatever ability that makes people prone to believe them, it is either an analysis of what they are saying, or faith in the abilities of numerous others who would be prepared to speak up if they thought that something didn't make sense."

Some people believe in scientists others do not. Unfortunately scientists are human, and thus are capable of self-aggrandisement (Korean Cloners?), ignoring inconvenient results (GM crop trials), being unwilling to upset the established view of reality (look into the recent history of the politics of the String Theory), and outright lies (the dangers of tobacco). I don't think science is doing very well at the moment in the public eye.

"In the more esoteric areas of physics, it is clear that there are both competing suggestions of how reality works *and* a fairly general skepticism about which (if any) ideas may actually be correct."

Which is healthy, as long as skepticism doesn't stifle debate or prevent research.

"A pretty odd argument there. It's evident that solder joints exist, and not remotely surprising that there are quality criteria in various uses of such joints."

There are standards, but only about a quarter of the world's electronics are built using them - think on that next time you plug in your £19.99 Chinese DVD player.

"Were you to claim to be a guinea-pig rectal dimension inspector who toured pet-shops checking that the creatures measured up to EU standard ABCD-12345, you'd be much less likely to be believed."

You mean BS EN ISO 17017? You might be surprised just how many standards there actually are, and that everyone of them is voluntary.

"Were the planet known to be populated by various groups of people claiming they each had some special understanding of soldering practices, chances are that each group would be treated rather skeptically by anyone not a member until they had explained why their ideas had merit. If there's only one standard (or a group of very similar international standards), it seems fairly likely that the standards have some rational basis in reality, at least in terms of avoiding defective products, (unless some less rational rules have been imposed by some particular body."

Unfortunately there are competing theories on good soldering practice, mostly backed by competing manufacturers and in some cases by countries such as the USA, the EU and China. There is also an industry of interpretation of these varying standards (sounds a bit like christianity don't it?).

As for less rational rules consider the recent banning of lead from solder and its replacement by silver. Strangely this makes no sense as silver is (a) more environmentally expensive to produce, (b) takes 20% more energy to melt, (c) is harder to recycle and (d) is often more toxic when landfilled (because of the alloys it must be made into to work and the oxides formed during soldering). These less rational rules were imposed by the EU and are now being imposed worldwide by both the US and China.

"To have an expectation that the technology is worth using, they don't need 'faith' in anything other than maybe its continued usability over time. If it clearly does work now, that it will work tomorrow is a reasonable rational conclusion, provided one doesn't exceed its operating constraints, or fail to supply needed consumables (power, water, soap tablets, etc."

Unfortunately a blind faith in science is destroying our habitable environment. Just two widely hailed scientific achievements could spell the doom for us all - Nitrate Fertilisers and Antibiotics. People have a touching faith in both of these despite mounting evidence they are more dangerous to humanity than nuclear weapons.

"I don't think it *is* 'essentially magic' to anyone who thinks that it is likely rationally explicable to people who have the inclination to want to find out and the ability to understand."

But you guys don't want to find out. Not about the many downsides of rational science or what I speak of. My experiences and choices make no sense to you with your present level of understanding of them, so they are condemned out of hand.

"Were some advanced alien spacecraft to land tomorrow, how many people would think it ran on magic (apart maybe from people with a leaning towards that kind of [supernatural] belief). Were seemingly telepathic aliens to walk out of the ship, how many people would think they're 'really' telepathic, compared to the numbers who would assume there was some hidden technological assist?"

What if it were revealed that the aliens' mode of transport broke all the accepted limits of our understanding of physics. Such as acceleration far past the speed of light? The public would believe it because they've seen Star Trek, but you couldn't because you are rationalists for whom the lack of evidence that you could understand would be an unsurpassable barrier.

I also think the public would be able to make the leap of faith required to believe in telepathy. You could not, even if it were true.

So who has the problem?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi Anhaga

"Does anyone else get the feeling that a certain resident Druid wants to have his cake and eat it too? I mean, Druidism isn't supernatural, it's just devoted to, concerned with, worshipful of natural forces/entities/stuff that science hasn't explained yet."

Some of the earliest references to the priesthood of the northern european tribes, and especially those of the Pretanni, describes them as natural philosophers. People who used reason, logic, rhetoric and great learning to guide their peoples.

That many of us now feel that we are experiencing things that seem to defy our present level of scientific understanding of the universe is a source of constant curiousity to us. Yes there are a few fringe nutters who are completely away with the faeries, but most druids are pretty rational and are searching for ways to explain what they experience.

We are either all mad, or there are explanations that are beyond what we presently are capable of measuring or understanding.

"Is that a religion or a partiularly ecstatic high school physics class? If it's just natural phenomena we've not explained yet, why is it a religion? Why not worship dark energy? "

It isn't a religion. Eddie et al keep trying to categorise it as a religion and tie it down to aspects of monthiesm such as 'faith', because it makes it easier then for them to rubbish and ignore.

Druidry is a way of life, a philosophical path that occasionally veers over the border between what is generally accepted and what is not. We are a curious folk who refuse to be bound by the accepted or consensus reality. We also know that we were not the first to walk this path and there are lessons to be learnt from our ancestors.

"Before Copernicus and Newton, planetary motion was unexplained by science. Yet anyone could look up from night to night and notice that Jupiter moved annoyingly about. And any group of people could look up and agree on the location of Jupiter in that night's sky."

There is mounting evidence that our pre-christian ancestors understood the heliocentric nature of the solar system, and had used careful and rational observation to be able to predict the movement of the moon, and the planets with an accuracy not matched until recent times. Their understanding of metallurgy, medicine, masonry and agriculture similarly were far more advanced than any society until at least the 19th century.

However, the minute these otherwise wise and interesting peoples show any evidence they interacted with anything spiritual, they become 'superstitious barbarians'. Go figure...

Blessings,
Matholwch .