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

Hi Fathom,

I'm not entirely sure at the moment, but I think that, of the two main competing theories of quantum gravity that currently exist: Superstrings and Loop Quantum Gravity, LQG suggests that time is discrete, but superstring theory does not.

I could be (and am likely to be) entirely wrong on this subject. I do know though that LQG suggests that both area and volume are also discrete.

Oh, if only physics were like the religious universe: then all one would need in order to come to understanding would be faith, hope and a bit of wishful thinking.

M. 6*6+6=42

'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity' by Lee Smolin is a good book to read if you're interested in quantum gravity. I can't remember if it said LQG had temporal discreteness or not so I'll have a look later.

I'm an atheist too, if you want to know. Has anybody mentioned the God paradox where if God can do anything he must be able to invent an object that he can't lift, which defies his infinite power, yet? If so, then over 17 thousand posts is a lot for me to have looked through to find it.

Who thinks that Hyperons (A1315856) prove the existence of God?
Did you know: Douglas Adams was also an atheist?

Thanks M, it was Loop Quantum Gravity I was thinking of; recently described in an article in New Scientist.

Since there are also discrete elements of length this would mean that spacetime is made up of [quite a large number of] four-dimensional units. This gives the universe a distinctly digital quality with a clock pulse of 10^43Hz. A bit Matrix-like don't you think?

F

I know you weren't asking me but I think in string theory space is made of intricate 6-dimensional Calibai-Yau spaces.

That's probably why we didn't ask.

F

AM



Oh, if only the religious universe were like physics; then all we'd need to do to decide the matters on this thread is a few experiments and a bit of maths!

You asked for that.

toxx

Hmmm...

"Oh, if only the religious universe were like physics; then all we'd need to do to decide the matters on this thread is a few experiments and a bit of maths! "

AtheistM and I would probably contend that it is; it's just a matter of suitable experiments and the right maths.



F

OK then, Fathom. Let us know when you've figured out which they are.

toxx

toxx

>>I do, however, wonder whether there are progressive schools of Heathenism as opposed to those who wish to delve into tradition. Not that the latter is at all a bad thing in itself.<<

Progressive heathens tend to make a lot of things up often based on what we call UPG (unsubstantiated personal gnosis).

When we do that, we tend to base the things on such things as:

i) an adaptation of existing lore to modern situations, often backed by meditation or divination to discover how the sources might be used in the present day

ii) a 'revealed' truth that we alone have experienced

iii)a 'revealed' truth which is confirmed by the similar experiences of others who are pledged (for instance) to the same deity or who have worked ritual in the same place...

When the UPG falls in to the first or last categories it tends to be treated as something to research further - groups exist especially on the net and within some hearths to help people who are struggling with the interpretation of UPG.

So yes, some heathenry is progressive and some is more traditional, but either way it is ultimately based on the personal relationship between a follower or a group of followers and his, her or their gods.

That said, there are heathens who do not have such a relationship but all of those I know in that situation are actively seeking to develop one.

Jez - a heathen pledged to one particular goddess, and who honours and is occasionally aware () of others.

"'Wyrd' sounds very similar to "The Ground of All Being" in Eatern religious traditions. Or am I getting it wrong?"

You'd have to explain that for me, Noggin. I can't google as ground-of-all-being appears to be a philosophy of spirituality term which applies to any religion.

Wyrd has no morality, which usually separates it from other relgions. As I understand Eastern religions, the concepts of karma and dharma rest on a form of morality. Wyrd is more akin to impersonal laws of what is - a rationale (what the ancient Greeks called "Logos") underlying and connecting the world. In that, toxx was more correct than he knew, as the beginning of John's gospel translated as "In the beginning was the word" is literally "in the beginning was the underlying rationale".

You can get an accurate flavour of wyrd if you have a small understanding of chaos theory.

Hello Stoney

"You say "I do not agree the OED's definitions under this usage...." when referring to the OED's entry for 'god', because "it uses the Christian value system in reaching its definitions". I disagree. It does explain in the text "the word has often a colouring derived from Christian associations" and goes on to explain why and states that definition 1.1 is "Chiefly of Heathen divinities". The definitions at 1.2 gives alternative meanings, one of which is "an idol". I disagree that it's a purely Christian usage."

(1) 'heathen' is a term used by Christians for non-Christians. It has also accumulated a derogatory usage over the years.
(2) 'idol' is a term used by Christians for ritual objects used by non-Christians.

If you disagree with these statements, I would be very interested in your evidence otherwise.

"I use the word 'supernatural' simply because it's the correct word to use in the context being discussed....Supernatural is a word that relates to things that cannot be explained by natural laws."

OK, let's go with this. The OED's definition of supernatural is "transcending the powers or the ordinary course of nature". It's definition of natural at I.1. is "the essential qualities of a thing; the inherent and inseparable combination of properties essentially pertaining to anything and giving it its fundamental character."

I see the first definition as irreconcilable with the second. The essential nature of my gods is natural according to this dictionary definition; it can be no other. Now, you may wish to pick a different dictionary definition of supernatural - the OED will give you a selection. but where does that take us? We have both picked dictionary definitions and may disagree with the other's. And?

"but for the most part the Christian Providence is really only the heathen Wyrd under another name"

toxx, Fletcher (who wrote this) is a highly respected academic writing on the Christianisation of England. Unfortunately, he is also a Christian and views his sources through that lens, not attempting a Heathen worldview. I have already written that there is no morality attached to wyrd, so it would only be likened to Providence by Christians. Heathens did not see it that way.

"I do, however, wonder whether there are progressive schools of Heathenism as opposed to those who wish to delve into tradition."

Toxx, it's impossible to be progressive unless one has an accurate idea of what one is progressing from.

"If you keep claiming that apples exist, but I've never seen them, or pears, and every time you try to prove to me that apples exist, you use arguments that are full of contradictions, or arguments that are illogical, then I would say that there is no reason for me to believe that pears exist."

Fairy 'nuff. though I'm not attempting to argue in favour of apples, myself and will happily argue against their existence.

" In fact, given the reputation that you would have built up for yourself, I would be entitled to view anything you said about these things I'd not seen as suspect."

Ad hominem argument?

Hello Sceptic

Nice to see you.

I'm bored and contemplating Pringles...

Jez - thinning heathen and witch with not quite enough won't power...

HS

The way I understand "the ground of all being" (which could well be misunderstand) is as the impersonal force behind Karma and dharma , and does sound awfully like wyrd and logos and also Schopenhauer's "will" (a philosopher much influenced by eastern philosophy, incidentally), and the idea of the universe as a set of rules of transformation, but each seen through a different prism of cultural/psychological expectations and interpretations.

Noggin

"Does this then mean that a child who has not been baptised who then dies before becoming aware of the rites and beliefs that they are meant to hold in the religion they are supposeduly a member of would not go to heaven?"

Actually, the opposite, AM
Prior to around the 13th century, baptism guaranteed the ticket to heaven for any child not deemed to be of sufficient age to be able to commit a mortal sin.

Around that time the church invented confirmation, presumably (I couldn't find any research which proved otherwsie and discussed the point with a bishop when I was confirmed, in my thirties) to enable children who achieved the age at which they were deemed capable of making their own moral choices to enter the Kingdom of God.

But then, I'm only a Heathen and what would I know?

"The way I understand "the ground of all being" (which could well be misunderstand) is as the impersonal force behind Karma and dharma "

If that's so, Noggin, then yes, the two concepts sound very similar.

>>Does this then mean that a child who has not been baptised who then dies before becoming aware of the rites and beliefs that they are meant to hold in the religion they are supposeduly a member of would not go to heaven?<<


>>If parents baptise their children in order to try to get them a ticket into heaven, and if this is supposedly okay because the child is not old enough to know that it ought to be asking Jesus to save it from its (original) sin, then why does it need to be baptised at all? If it is not aware of needing to worship god or ask Jesus to enter its life and "save it", then how could a benevolent god "punish" that child by not allowing it into heaven purely because its parents did not believe?<<

>>You could argue that they need to be saved from the original sin, but that sin was not the direct fault of the child. And original sin sounds rather grotesque anyway (which, I know, is not a reason for its untruth) since it is based on this "visit the sins of the father on future generations" kind of idea which seems out of place with what most people would think of as morality. And although this also does not mean that we have the "right" morality, I am reasonably sure that if I were to start advocating the punishment of grandchildren, great-grandchildren etc for crimes that people they may never have met had performed, I would not be regarded as having good morals.<<

>>Prior to around the 13th century, baptism guaranteed the ticket to heaven for any child not deemed to be of sufficient age to be able to commit a mortal sin.<<

Are we all back to Math and Bod at sulphur outfall #4?

Jez - heathen by choice and conviction but baptised, without her consent, in infancy.