Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Thank God For Skepticism

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on May 25, 2003 14:40:56 UTC

Kyle,

I am reminded that in the High Holiday jewish services there is a prayer for doubt. Skepticism is an essential trait, especially for believers, just as an open mind is essential for non-believers, as you have demonstrated.

The Editor of Skeptic now has a column in Scietific American. He does not exemplify an open mind, but he is very rational.

One sentence from your postparticularly caught my attention:

"However if two completely different theories both give results which 'agree with experiment', which is the correct theory? "

The same problem exists in physics with regard to quantum mechanics where several different sets of assumptions yield the same theory. The best example, which I have used often in these posts, is Feymann's use of particles only to derive quantum electro dynamics (QED). No fields or wave functions were needed. Only problem is that he needed anti-particles coming back in time to interact with the forward time moving particles to get rid of all the infinities.

Such a particle only story explains the double slit experiment. Yet that experiment can be explained, for the case of photons, using only (time forward) electromagnetic waves. Then there is the Bohm theory of the double slit and even the Everett many worlds theory, and the latest one referenced with a link in another thread below that explains it as a probability algorithm with distorted spacetime.

So physics itself at its foundations is ambiguous. Top level it means that we should believe in the results, but not necessarily in the various theories to explain those results. It's the equations that count, not any fundamental implications.

Thank you for explaining what macula means. But I do wish you would expand on its connection to you as a nick or screen name.

Does DMTC mean Dark Matter Theory of Consciousness? I like that acronym even if it does not.

I'll search for ORMUS on the Web. My guess is that the semi-conductor effective particles are too heavy (too small spatial extent wave functions) to be BEC at room temperature.

I am very pleased that a skeptic as yourself would find my paper to be a possibility. I have to admit that I more hope that it is true than believe that it is true. I used to be an avowed atheist, but the lack of hope was very difficult for me to handle. So for me any possibility of an afterlife is something I need. I just want to make that possibility as rational as possible.
Any help from a rational skeptic will be appreciated.

In appreciation,

Richard aka yanniru


Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins