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

Boy, oh, boy, oh boy! You guys have been having fun haven't you! Well, I went off and got married, and in the meantime, I did some thinking about just what you're talking about.

First off, Okham is spelled Occam here in America, so I'll be using the spelling more familiar to me, since it's easier to type
: )

Occam's idea of the most probable reality being the truth turns out to be right on a quantum level. All quantum "decisions"
are made in multi-dimensional space time, which we can't adequately describe, being essentially three dimensional
creatures. Start with any question, like "Is there a universe?" You will notice that this does two things. It answers itself in the
positive (since there was something to ask the question - me) and it leads to the question "Why?" Personally, I don't know
or need to know the answer to this question. But I can guess, and given what I know about the universe, the answer is
"Because there are things to observe it."

This is terribly Schroedinger and Heisenberg, I know, but what the heck, they were right : )

Next question - what does this have to do with probability? When you are examining an issue (like whether there is a god or
not), the answer is always maybe. You can't be sure, yes or no, because something might happen. Like - is the Earth going
to be around in the year 2000? I don't know, maybe the Four Horsemen will show up and the rapture and the heaven and the
hell and all that. Could happen. Not bloody likely, though, given what I know about things. Occam would say "no." A simpler
example: will gasoline all over the world stop combusting, causing the break-down of vehicles everywhere. Well, much
more probably gasoline will continue to act exactly as we've known it to do. This expectation we have that things will act as
we have experienced them to do is "high probability."
Scientists can be snide about what they think they know, but all they ever really have is a "high probability" of knowledge that
a given thing will act in their expected way. If you'd asked a scientist a hundred years ago if a normally single celled creature
could form a multicelled creature, the new creature being a specialized and different creature in every way complete with
cell specialization, a reproductive system, and even self-awareness, you'd have been laughed out of the Royal Academy,
my fine truth-seeking friends. Probably they would have told you that it would not be terribly likely. But of course
dictyostelium discoideum is just such a critter. (I know I've mentioned them before guys, I just like them - I mean how cool
could you be and still be unicellular?)

Also, it goes a long way towards explaining life's existence. "Probably" an extremely complex sugar needed something and
it bonded with another. Proteins happened and poof. Either that or God molded man out of clay in his own image and gave
him holy mouth-to-mouth. Um, can you say "yeah, right," boys and girls? Given what YOU know about the universe, which
of these scenarios is more likely? Now I'm not saying the whole sugars-proteins-life thing is RIGHT, there are lots of
theories out there, and Si probably knows them better than I do, but I bet it's close...

My favorite question is about the big bang. What caused it? Ok, at some point in 4th dimensional time-space, there had to
be a beginning to all this, right? (snicker)

Ok, have you ever heard about tachyons? They travel backwards in time. So what happened is that before the universe
started, there was a void sitting around innocently minding its own voidish business. Suddenly, the universe, which was to
exist a few seconds later, generated a tachyon. Where was the poor tachyon to go? Well, since it ran out of universe when
the universe started, it ended up in the void. The void, out of sheer surprise, created something, because something had to
have generated the tachyon in the first place, right? That's my hypothesis, you're welcome to it.

A more educated person than myself had a slightly different theory, which I provide a link to below. He's actually talking
about time as a perceptual construct, and I tend to believe him. Although that doesn't make the wait in line at the metro any
easier...

http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/ns-dtr101399.html

Now this is a fundamental problem of living in 3 dimensions and being fundamentally controlled by the 4th, without having the slightest understanding of it. TIME, my good folks, TIME is the problem which is at the root of many of the arguments here. We as humans see time as a linear thing, it goes forwards, it always goes forwards, it's as immutable as the rising of the sun, and the infernal ticking of the millions of clocks, isn't it? Is it hell (and I use that in a non-denomenational way). Time does not go forwards in the same way that it doesn't go backwards. Time exists as a dimension just like all the others, it has "high" bits where time is rapid, and "low" bits where time is at a standstill. There was nothing before in the same way there is nothing after, because there is no before or after. We (creatures of this planet) PERCEIVE time as moving forwards because that is the only psychologically acceptable way of perceiving it. It is very difficult for us to imagine what it would be like to exist in more dimensions than our own. There is no reason why a being couldn't. Imagine not being constrained by time. Imagined being able to look at this planet and see it throughout it's "time". It would be incredible, you'd be able to see every age of the planet from it's beginning to it's end. Think of what the sky at night would look like!! Obviously you'd need something of a higher scale of vision to be able to see this, but anyway, what I'm saying is, what the hell am I saying, oh yes, any being that living in a greater number of dimensions than ours would seem godlike since they would have creative power over dimensions which we are subject to. In the same way that a two dimensional being would be in awe of our mastery of three dimensional space. However they as us are not gods.

(Just thought I'd copy in my last little bit on Time - A human hang-up )

Continuing a thread from Is God Dead 2...

Posted 27 minutes ago by Si
Subject: Is God dead 2
> Surely this is the history of the last 10,000 years?
> We build society up to a highly advanced level, then there is a dark
> age and society builds again. As you say starting with highly hierarchical societies -
Egypt - where the rulers were
> Deities, through Feudalism, to Democracy. And true Dark Ages aren't very nice.

>Yes. You see? I knew I was right

>A more modern example would be the former Soviet Union and this is certainly my mate's
>interpretation of what we did in Kosovo. I don't think it worked there though, atleast it hasn't
>worked yet. We'll have to see if efforts to destablise Milosovic get anywhere.

>So are we ready for a western Dark Age? In light of your Echelon stuff (hadn't heard that
>before) should the UK/US power structures be the next to go?

Let me say on behalf of all my countrymen - Fear Not! We would never use our superior technology for evil!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(wiping tears from his eyes) Oh, it's fun to be an American sometimes... Seriously, though, doesn't that sound just like something an American congressman or other superhero would say if he were confronted with this : )


Oh (not to launch us into a political argument as well), but how about that negative vote on signing the Nuclear Test Ban treaty, huh, folks? You know why the senate wouldn't let Bill Clinton sign that one? They want a Republican president to get credit for it. So they'll put it off for two years, then if George W. gets elected, they'll preen and talk about what a good time it was to get this thing signed and blah blah blah. I hate living in a republic sometimes. Give me good old fashioned rule by the living god. I mean, look at the pyramids! Do you think we Americans could ever get such a thing built? *sigh*

I thought you'd already built them in Vegas!?

I still don't understand who Occam is, or why he has a razor. I still don't know what Si has against the One Cosmic Muffin, or why people seem to believe that faith and proof cancel eachother out. I'm willing to listen to all the proof, but I have yet to see where proof actually negates my faith. If there is a higher being, and I like to think there is, why is it so unbelievable that S/He controlls the Universe through methods that can be scientifically explained? If there is no higher power, how did those scientific laws begin to work? Science attempts to explain HOW the universe works. Religion attempts to explain WHY. How can the answers to two differnet questions be so at odds with eachother? I am not a Theologist, I am not a Scientist, I am a college freshman english major who just can't seem to hold his own when everyone else mentions this Occam guy. I want my Cosmic Muffin!

>I still don't understand who Occam is, or why he has a razor.

This must remain a personal quest for you, since the rest of us aren't allowed to mention his name again. Thoroughly good bloke though.

>I'm willing to listen to all the proof, but I have yet to see where >proof actually negates my faith.

It doesn't, one doesn't exist and the other's a psychological fallacy, but I won't tell you which is which.

>If there is no higher power, how did those scientific laws begin to >work?

And if there is a higher power, of waht stuff is he/she/it made, and who made the laws governing it's existence (See writing by the bloke at the top)

>Science attempts to explain HOW the universe works. Religion
>attempts to explain WHY. How can the answers to two differnet
>questions be so at odds with eachother?

Science is well into the WHY these days, chaos & complexity theory, quantum physics, string theory are all very WHY theories.

>I am a college freshman english major

Don't be so hard on yourself .

>I want my Cosmic muff in...

I bet you do!

>I am a college freshman english major

aHA! There's your problem, my friend! Change majors IMMEDIATELY! (This from a person who went through 4 majors before settling on English himself, but that should be a warning sign : ) I recommend ANYTHING besides English. Philosophy's more useful than English as a major. At least you learn logic in Philosophy, but the only marketable skill you learn with a degree in English is how to read fiction and poetry. Oh, wait, that's not marketable, what am I talking about?

And then, once you're a philosophy major, look up a guy named William, but I'm not allowed to tell you his last name. He had a razor or something : )

> >I want my Cosmic muff in...

> I bet you do!

Ooh, Matron! Heh, someone once asked a comedian (can't remember who - might've been Billy Connolly), "Do you like Dickens?" to which he replied "I don't know. I've never been to one."

The only thing I have against The One Cosmic Muffin is maple syrup and a large spoon.

Here's is the WORD...

http://www.douglasadams.com/cgi-bin/mboard/general/thread.cgi?665,35

...and THE way...

http://www.douglasadams.com/cgi-bin/mboard/general/thread.cgi?665,39

Points of interest:

Very long and entertaining thread that covers a wide range of religious flaming shenanigans.
Involves many people who you'll have met around here in the place we originally met.
The VERY THREAD where I decided to revert from Dirk Gently to my real name! Talk about historic!

Hi Irving,

Can we be friends again? Even if I shout at people?

The choice between theology and science is just like the choices presented by sport. You have to pick a team because their approaches are mutually exclusive. Proof (or evidence) denies faith because that's how the word faith is defined - it's unfounded belief.

I disagree with Merkin about agnosticism's honesty. You either accept the null hypothesis and painstakingly pick away at your unknowns by looking very hard at them or you choose your own spiritual way which might well be agnostic. Both of these approaches are just as *personally* valid.

So why do I get so steamed?

Both science and theology attempt to answer questions. We are social animals and when we've got a new answer we like to tell others. It is the very nature of science to invite others to examine the *same evidence* in the same way - not simply distribute it's word. It is the very nature of religion (not personal faith) to simply distribute it's word unexplained.

Still not too bad so far but in the worst, and most public, cases religion presumes to trample even further over science's turf. You have no idea (and neither do I) how many times I have heard "evolution is just a theory" in the last two years. That is either a fundamental misunderstanding of the word or a deliberate attempt to mislead. That's not just a disagreement between "worldviews", it is just utterly wrong and yet children are being denied education in the cornerstone of biology. That is intellectual abuse. Catholicism's claim that all life is sacred is a laudable one but completely misses the point that assuming that a fertilised egg is a separate life to which the concept of murder applies, removes fundamental human rights from the mother. These issues need discussion, not autocratic dogma. These are the faces of religion that I want gone from the world.

So the reason I get so worked up is that I so passionately want everyone else to look and think for themselves. I don't want you to believe what I say about complexity theory just because I'm getting good at writing about it, I want you to look at Conway's Life and say, "How the hell can that happen?" - and then go and find out.

>The choice between theology and science is just like the choices presented by sport. You have to pick a team because their approaches are mutually exclusive. Proof (or evidence) denies faith because that's how the word faith is defined - it's unfounded belief.

Yeah, we humans tend to pick a team, not really with our own judgement, and tend to stick to them stubbornly, not willing to accept even objective questioning about their abilility or validity. Same sort of thing can really be applied to the faith/proof thing, especially to ye ole blind faith. (See below)

>So the reason I get so worked up is that I so passionately want everyone else to look and think for themselves. I don't want you to believe what I say about complexity theory just because I'm getting good at writing about it, I want you to look at Conway's Life and say, "How the hell can that happen?" - and then go and find out.

Thats what its all about. People can really follow their faith blindly (not all of them of course), just listening to everything their teacher tells them without really thinking about it for themselves. If you're that certain of your faith, then asking questions about it is only going to fuel your belief. If you find something else that surprises you, then you're better off for it.

Those with faith that follow a leader like a flock of sheep never questioning are in need of help. I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of references in the bible that say its neat to question.

One thing I'll give to science is that they're always questioning things enough to have lovely arguments about it all the time, which really can only help them attempt to find the truth.

> Yeah, we humans tend to pick a team, not really with our own
> judgement, and tend to stick to them stubbornly, not willing to
> accept even objective questioning about their abilility or validity.

Good point. Let's say I'm a science worshipper. Let's say I've picked up one of Dawkins' books and something in there went ching with the nagging atheistic urge that lurked through my childhood. I have an icon now - a saviour. I read his words and he tells me of the great scribes Pinker and Dennet. A fellow disciple points me to Kauffman and I read all their scriptures and I pass on their words to all who will listen (and many who won't).

What's the difference between me and any other "follower"?

not a sausage my dear. We are all tribal creatures in need of an alpha male. Society has just made that alpha male bigger, more abstact and more all encompassing. You certainly have great faith in science and "it's" (cos it's really our) ability to provide satisfactory answers to the questions the universe throws at us.

I think the reason many people do not have more faith in science is that they see science as institutions, people etc today, rather than as a way of seeking understanding.

> You certainly have great faith
> in science and "it's" (cos it's really our) ability to provide satisfactory
> answers to the questions the universe throws at us.

The difference is that this is a belief based on it's demonstrable ability to answer the questions that the universe throws at us and is not, therefore, blind faith. It hasn't answered all our questions, and there may be some that it never will, but it's the only approach that ever has.

I think that our next bottom line is that most people think it'd be really neat if they could really believe in something in a world with not-so-many solid answers for our questions.

Because most people want this pretty badly, they're willing to overlook things that don't quite add up in order to satisfy their happiness. I think with any sort of faith in anything, you have to be able to be not completely honest with yourself in accepting some things to be true. Though some people don't have even a hint of a nagging doubt. I wonder if these are the fortunate or the unfortunate.

And yes, Scientific zeal is almost as bad as Religious Zeal. But at least most scientists try to explain themselves. Those religious whom have heard the good word and just accepted it without a question drive me bonkers.

> I think that our next bottom line is that most people think it'd be really
> neat if they could really believe in something in a world with
> not-so-many solid answers for our questions.

I don't know. Do you think so? It could be that or it could be sheer laziness or it could be, as Merkin suggests, a growing public distrust of scientists. Infact there are probably examples of all three.

Careful with the "solid answers" stuff, though, that'll get you into trouble. I know what you mean, some things, things that I've spent alot of time thinking about, seem like solid answers but if you ever dare to say it you get showered with tons of "there are no absolutes" and "there is no such thing as scientific proof" bullshit that leads in ever-decreasing semantic circles.

Anyway, back to the popular approach to science. Merkin alluded to the fact that scientists are really "us" anyway, and that couldn't be more true. We are all scientists and we all have a better appreciation of the way things work than we realise.

We are all privy to something called "folk science". I'm not sure what the difference between this and common sense is, but think along those lines. You and I are sat at a flat table upon which there is a jug of water and I pick the jug and upturn it. Your immediate reaction is to leap out of your chair to get away from the edge of the table. So far so good. But if there is a one inch lip around the table, you don't move. Half an inch? An eighth of an inch? Depends how big the jug and table are, doesn't it? What are you some kind of genius fluid dynamicist? You didn't even stop to think about it!

Not impressed? I throw the empty jug high in the air in your general direction and day "catch". It's your favourite jug so you become an expert in Newtonian mechanics and calculus to catch it.

At what point do we leave behind that kind of intuitive process and trust in something completely out of this world?

>Careful with the "solid answers" stuff, though, that'll get you into trouble.

You're right, people would like to have some solid answers, only we don't have any (conclusively). They'd still like some though.

Here's a question. If we had some solid answers, would people be any happier?

>"there are no absolutes" and "there is no such thing as scientific proof" bullshit that leads in ever-decreasing semantic circles

Certainly something that we all ought to avoid. Whenever we get caught up in an argument, I find that half the time is spent misunderstanding the other person and semantics.

>Not impressed? I throw the empty jug high in the air in your general direction and day "catch". It's your favourite jug so you become an expert in Newtonian mechanics and calculus to catch it.
At what point do we leave behind that kind of intuitive process and trust in something completely out of this world?

I'd like to think that everyone had a healthy mix of common sense and gut instinct to carry them through life. Then something outside the realms of that comes along like 'love' or something and completely throws you. Don't ask me what the recommended 'healthy mix' is. Are you talking about the proverbial 'leap of faith'? I suppose its best done when something outside of our comprehension becomes more plausible than the best theory the resident thinkers manage to come up with?

Actually, you throw my favorite jug in the air and I'll become an expert pugilist and demonstrate my newfound talents ; )

Your point about folk science was good, but then you started talking about instinct and motor skills. Folk science, to me, is what people in agrarian societies do. Specifically, rustic or rural people, making their lives out of soil and an axe... Pepper is a preservative, so a lot of food is made very spicy in countries without readily available refrigeration. Garlic was "known" to be very good for you by most civilizations long before there were any systematic nutritional studies done. That kind of thing. Now, mind you, folk science is often WRONG, but so is "real" science, like leeches or lobotomies.

> You're right, people would like to have some solid answers, only we don't have any (conclusively). They'd still like some though.

What I meant was that, IMO we do have some. It's just that others don't agree. Take something simple like the second law of thermodynamics, regarded as one of the crowning glories of modern science: in any closed thermodynamic system, entropy (disorder) must increase over time.

That will work. It will work every time. And yet "it's only a theory that hasn't been disproved".

> Then something outside the realms of that comes along like 'love' or something and completely throws you.

There are actually some good evolutionary explanations for love that I probably won't do justice here. I'll have a go though

There are distinct evolutionary advantages in some kind of bonding mechanism for an animal as complicated as us. We spend a great deal of time raising a single brood of children. This is necessary in order that we have time to teach them things that evolution does not have to time to adapt to. It is our genes' selfish interest to ensure that we don't just leave them out for the lions, so they build circuits in the brain that "attach" us to our children. It works the other way too. It seems that there are specialised circuits for recognising your mothers face seperate to the usual face recognition stuff.

If your genes have gone to the trouble of allowing you to spot an attractive (and therefore probably physically fit) potential mate why would they stop there? Why not something to lock you into "the chase" right upto the point where your children are raised?

You're better off reading "How the Mind Works" (Pinker), though, 'cause I've botched the job.

Love is not a special case. It's just nice

At what point do we leave behind that kind of intuitive process and trust in something completely out of this world?

> Don't ask me
> what the recommended 'healthy mix' is. Are you talking about the proverbial 'leap of faith'? I suppose its best done
> when something outside of our comprehension becomes more plausible than the best theory the resident thinkers
> manage to come up with?

I don't think we should leave all that good sense behind at all.

Yeah but that's just a different use for the term. Use my "folk science" for my stuff and keep the other seperate.