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

When I had a hand operation a while back (carpel tunnel for all you keyboarders out there!) the surgeon insisted I had a general anaesthetic so I wouldn't be able to comment on his technique!

Well, I have viewed the inside of my bladder on screen in glorious colour - mostly pink! Fortunately there wasn't anything much to see apart from the uretorical outlets; and the endoscope itself - curled round to look back at itself.

Yes, VB. Newton is on the list: http://myautis.com/famousaspies.html

Some of the other names might surprise a few folks.

Now that I think about it, Toxx, I realise there are a couple 'romeos' in my dad's department. I don't feel quite so stupid now. Interesting list, too. Nietzche and Thoreau as well -- I've always hypothesised that autistic people can be a heck of a lot smarter than 'normal' people.

In the book, too, Newton is portrayed as a rather unpleasant character. Antisocial, stubborn, arrogant, exculsionary -- especially in the earlier portions of the cycle, when he's still at Trinity and hasn't gone on to become the Master of the Mint yet. When he is in charge of the Mint, he is shown as becoming a bit more civil, as he must be in such a political position. Anyway, I can't say I'd want to be friends with him. Leibniz appears to have been much more personable -- though since he was German I'd not be able to communicate with him, unless I could muster up enough Latin to stumble along.

An interesting thing that just occurred to me is that Latin was considered the 'scholarly' language for many, many years long after the fall of Rome. It still is, in fact. Why on earth could this be? The Romans (especially their Emperors) weren't exactly the picture of intellectual excellence.

EMR

I'm afraid I'm no historian, EMR, but I guess it's to do with the attitude towards the ruling 'class', whoever they happen to be. Then again, the church was a major player in this game and surely hung on to Latin in order to maintain an exclusive grip on power.

We can compare medical and legal 'jargon' now. Sometimes, special terms are needed, but on other occasions it's just as much there to keep professional secrets. I bet there are street gangs in LA whom you would have trouble understanding too.

Back to the Romans, they made some remarkable practical advances. I handn't realised until recently that they made great progress in the construction of concrete structures. Much of England is still traversed by roads that are Roman in origin. If the Greeks were Alan Turing, I guess the Romans would be Bill Gates. Hey, both on that Asperger's list!

toxx

Tonytalk - A boundless universe and and a universe with a boundery are two horns of the same dilemma.

Haaaa . . . so true

... and yet, so ... ...

Do we still use the term infinite when we refer to space? I reckoned that I thought infinite was an easier concept to grasp than big numbers after I read the entry on Googol...

Why not? I could be bounded in a nutshell and think myself lord of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams . . .

On the subject of boundaries see

F55607?thread=192835&skip=17410

A universe whose laws are the same for all observers is necessarily boundless, but not necessarily infinite.

Noggin

I need to produce a philisophical phrase, do I? I wonder if it is required to be enlightening and original. After reading Sophie's World (an excellent novel) and Joseph Pieper's In Defence of Philosopy, I doubt there is much philisophical originality to be had, at least not from my somewhat poorly educated head. I am mostly harmless, you see.
All right... I suppose this is more a question than a philisophical statement, but I've been reading several of Otto's posts and I seem to be stuck on the idea of religious philosophy. It appears to me that the idea (presented by a believer) of faith is the biggest cop-out that ever was. Faith is the all-convenient answer to everything, a person doesn't have to logically support any argument at all where faith is concerned. Faith and that delightless expression, "I don't know, I just KNOW" feel just like a giant crutch to me. Why is it that factual, logical or otherwise legitimate evidence is required in all arguments except those pertaining to religion?
I have to go back to work, but I believe I will try to better develop this tomorrow.

Hi Terp. I've been posting about this topic on the "God: fact or fiction" thread for quite a while. I rely only on evidence and philosophical or scientific argument to demonstrate the existence of a personal God of the deistic kind at least. I use the KCA: (Kalam Cosmological Argument) as my main vehicle.

If you ask your question over there, you'll find a bunch of free thinking and bright folks who have given much thought to the question. There are Christians, Heathens, Pagans, Druids, atheists, agnostics etc.

For an intro to the KCA, see:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

toxx

I was going to mention the 'God' thread - but then I got distracted for several hours and you beat me to it. The thread can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F55607?thread=192835 It's loads of fun, and don't feel required to read the whole backlog.

Faith is indeed a cop-out, resorted to when there is nothing left but to cop out or go under. But that doesn't make it easy.

As Wittgenstein A1024156 said (of the theory of predestination) it's more of a cry, or a sigh, than a theory.

Thank you for the links, guys. Intersting arguments, but I need more time to delve into the KCA argument, so I won't be directly commenting on that today. But I can promise something tomorrow.
About faith -- I never said it was easy or otherwise. I would simply find it extremely uncomfortable to accept an idea that is always a way out of an argument when one is argued into a corner. I lose arguments and that is how I know that I am learning. Faith is overly convenient, it fills in all the gaps, a believer need never really lose an argument in their own eyes. It is just so, the believer believes himself to have won when he has offered no organized, logical contention. And yet, the rest of us are required to cross reference and quote, to include statistics and footnotes. I feel it is a double standard.

Hi Terps. I wish every student understood this. It is absolutely essential. I recall, as a university teacher, losing an argument about computing with a semi-illiterate schoolboy of about 16. When I said, with a smile, "You're right, I'm wrong" he was gobsmacked. This kind of thing ought to happen regularly, but it appears to be sadly rare.

That schoolboy is now administrator of the computer network at a local college. Amazingly, his school teachers had refused to let him study computing because he was too opinionated!

I agree with you about faith too. Faith is believing something that is, on the face of it, incredible. But credibility is the only rational basis for believing anything. OK, many people don't know the strongest arguments for things. So they might fail to believe them out of ignorance. That is fair. I think the KCA could well be a very strong argument for something that people increasingly find implausible.

toxx

T116 "a believer need never really lose an argument in their own eyes."

Very true, this is what makes the faithful hard to deal with. A wonderful example of this is the Munich experiments on dowsing http://www.csicop.org/si/9901/dowsing.html

The experimenters were trying to find empirical evidence of the efficacy of dowsing, and to their own satisfaction they did. But a scientific statistician has gone over their figures and demonstrated that they establish the opposite, namely that dowsing has no success greater than random.

The best thing you can do with the faithful is sympathise.

Ok, as someone who has faith but is also open to a good discussion I find it interesting when people find out they are not believing in what they thought they were believing in.

Religious education (as opposed to indoctination) should adapt with age just as any other subject does. Telling children about not putting strange objects in their mouths when they are 5 would not be appropriate when trying to teach 14 year olds about the dangers of drugs - but it is in the same ball park if you get my drift.

Many adults stopped having religious education when they left primary school at 11. So their view of the spiritual and moral aspects of the world is often stuck at the "don't put strange things in your mouth" level.

We are creatures that operate on many levels and I can understand that people who put their faith in logic don't want their faith to be shaken. I've said this before but doesn't quantum theory defy logic? Can't two opposites be true at the same time. Can't all outcomes exist at once.

In my maths I'm probably still at eh level of avoiding putting strange objects in my mouth because I've been told they would be bad for me.

Interesting comments, all.

On the subject of quantum theory, and do let's continue the metaphors: Once upon a time, in a far away land, the idea that the sun did not go around the earth defied logic, as did the thought that perhaps light wasn't just there -- perhaps it had to travel. Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein and their contemporaries defied logic daily -- or what was considered to be logical. The point I'd like to make is that as the human race contines to attempt to think and understand and discover, it seems that mathematics has a facet for each new discovery -- not necessarily something that becomes apparent right away, but after a few years, decades, centuries, etc... math can be applied where it was previously thought that there was no way that the rules of mathematical logic applied. Case in point: relativity. I will admit that I am not as well schooled in math and science as perhaps I ought to be, and if there are theories (besides the very new ones, such as quantum mechanics, also discluding religious theories, as it is religious theory we are questioning) that have defied math for many eons please post them.

I feel that the learning of one human being is much like the learning of the human race in general -- it is a continuum, and though we as a race are so fond of saying things like "the height of technology" and "new breakthrough dicovery" I feel that we should take these statements with a grain of salt. There will be more dicoveries and ideas that will build on those of today. And that is why I place my "faith" in logic, mathematics, science and philosophy -- I am supposed to argue with these things, delve into them and disassemble them. These ideas are supposed to evolve, to be further understood and more deeply developed. No scientist asks me to take their word at face value. I can research subjects I don't understand. I never have to take anything on faith. And, lastly but very importantly, "I don't know" is a legitimate answer, as long as one is willing to experiment and research and try to find out.

I am attempting to print off some of the info from these great links you guys keep giving me for a little light reading.

And thank you toxx, I apreciate the compliment. What is life when learning has ceased? Only death.

Terps