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

Consensus is valuable because it can means that an argument is so clear and logical that it has swayed a majority of people's minds. There are, of course, many objections to basing truth on the consensus. The history of scientific consensus is a example, Imperfect as it is, consensus is sometimes the best we have. What are the alternatives? truth by fiat, individual intuition, minority verdict, or non-expert verdict

It is the case that Math's gods exist for him, and my belief that this is the case is conditional upon his remarks.

It may or may not be the case that they *really* exist, but it's either one or the other, and not conditionally according to Math's belief, or my disbelief.

Of course, the issue is complicated in this sort of case by the possibility of varying interpretations of what is *meant* by gods and existing, but that doesn't change the basic logic of the situation.

Noggin

Fathead
We've covered that DNA thing a bit previously, but you put it very nicely .

Has anyone heard of the 'string theory' ?

Basics

http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic4.html

Even more complicated !

http://superstringtheory.com/basics/basic4a.html

yea, but im no expert. wee circles of enery form all matter by vibrating at different frequncies yea? quite interesting cause if true, and if we could control it we could turn anything into anything.

P.S.
what conclusion did you get on the dna thing?

Depends how you read it, toxx.

I read it as "Everything that is the case is (constitutes) the world."

Which disposes of your first objection. And "It is the case that X will be the case" disposes of the second.

Noggin

Noggin
I think that 'string' theory' maybe the sort of thing I've been going on about when I've attempted to say that'everything' is subatomic partical vibrating at a certain frequency (only I haven't ever string shaped it) Those building blocks of consciousness things I've rattled on about in the past.

Noggin. My problem is with what is meant by 'for' in this context. Would anyone care to explain?

toxx

Fathead

No majority vote on the DNA thing I suspect, but I believe it to be the evidence of creator entity which I've labelled Quantum Consciousness (some people like that name God for the same thing)
There has to be first cause, a singularity that motivates the causal cascade we recognise as life. It matters not if the results are considered a 'happy accident' - serendipity - or not, since there still has to be first cause. We could equally title this conversation; Did God (quantum consciousness) mean this all to happen?

PS
Fathead, correct on string theory and yes, if we could change the vibration of anything, we could change how we percveive it looks.
There is no spoon ! (There is Higgs bottle of wine - only since we can't change non matter into matter, we'd have to use soemthing else to make the wine)

Noggin. . Since the existence of God is at issue on this thread, and not everyone takes God to be part of the world, your assumption begs the question.

To say that is to finesse 'X will be the case' for the purposes of this argument. I guess I have to call that a 'metacase' which won't quite do!

toxx

DNA is a complex chemical which abides by the laws of physics/chemistry. How the first strand of DNA came into existence may be a mystery, but it's an empirical mystery, not a mystical mystery. What sort of stuff would a "higher energy" be? Is it conserved? How does it interact with ordinary energy? In fact, before invoking "higher" energy as an explanation, an explication of ordinary energy would be appropriate (and there could be a Nobel Prize in it, too ).

Little bits of vibrating string is, I'm sure, an excellent theory of everything. I just wish they wouldn't vibrate in *quite* so many dimensions.

Noggin

Water might do.

i believe god did mean it, further on evolution (i follow it myself) there had to be a hand in it. if you think of an elephants nose, you see the benifit. but what good is a horse like thing whith a big nose? the trait wouldn't be advantagious till it was further evolved, so why would it? also why do we have a concionce? from an evolutionary perspective theft, murder, rape could all be advantagius in some circumstances. so why do we feel bad when we do something wrong

Noggin
Matter not DNA.
Vibration is energy = all things have energy within. Matter = energy. Matter is vibration of subatomic particles.
Energy is Quantum consciousness = higher energy. Higher energy creates matter through vibration.
I know we've been here before .

Fathead
"so why do we feel bad when we do something wrong "
Because we are social animals, we survive best in groups and have evolved emapthy. Through empathy we 'imagine' 'bad' being done to us. We want to avoid bad being done to us, so we try to avoid 'bad' doing to others.
If somebody is murdered, we demand that they are caught and punished or at least placed somewhere they can't murder us.

toxx. It's not an *assumption* - it's a *definition*.

Yes, Moth, I always gathered that string theory was what you had in mind. Apparently a lot of the maths is now in place; all that has to be done is to work out the implications. Shouldn't take more than a couple of hundred years.

Noggin

Moth. Vibration of what?

toxx

Noggin. Definitions are, of course, assumptions /par excellence/. Haven't you encountered 'persuasive definitions'?

toxx

*I* haven't.