[Thomas An.]

Religions should be seen for what they are ... "ancient attempts towards explaining the surroundings" ........... However, now, we can do better, we have more accurate sensors than just our eyes and touch ... and we can put things to more rigorous analysis.

Oh come on Thomas, no matter how enamoured you are of the scientific method, surely there's a bit more to it than that....

Findings should "never" be skewed to comply to preconcieved expectations.

Also, it has nothing to do with infactuations (enamourings) or other emotional dimensions ... It is about consistency ... it is about discovering the true mechanisms of reality and having a model whose pieces fit precisely like a jigsaw puzzle without producing logical conflicts.

[Thomas An.]

... What makes up a quark, that's a good question that no one seems to know the answer to yet? .

I agree here. The only difference now is in the way you handle this realisation. Do we give up and say "ah, screw it, let's say it was created and then leave it at that" ... or do we try harder with better and more elegant constructs ... such as a brane theory or similar (or yet unknown) concept that fits much more closely and explain much more accurately and with less inconsistencies ?

Again, the idea that something was "created" is not a true answer either, because that "being" would be composed of something as well (probably composed of something else, but "something" nonetheless).

[Miles]

Also, it has nothing to do with infactuations (enamourings) or other emotional dimensions ... It is about consistency ... it is about discovering the true mechanisms of reality and having a model whose pieces fit precisely like a jigsaw puzzle without producing logical conflicts.

Well, it seems likely that Religions also originated to fill an emotional need, something that persists even when you have your "theory of everything".

There've been some great debates on the edge: www.edge.org/

[Maxer]

... What makes up a quark, that's a good question that no one seems to know the answer to yet? .

I agree here. The only difference now is in the way you handle this realisation. Do we give up and say "ah, screw it, let's say it was created and then leave it at that" ... or do we try harder with better and more elegant constructs ... such as a brane theory or similar (or yet unknown) concept that fits much more closely and explain much more accurately and with less inconsistencies ?

No we continue to search for answers as logical thinking people, but I think it's apparent that even when those answers are answered there will continue to be new questions. My question would be do you think one can believe in God and yet continue to search for scientific explanations to explain the universe?

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." Einstein

[glebe digital]

All theories have problems, be they religious theories or scientific ones........if they had no problems then they wouldn't be theories anymore, they'd be truths.
Considering all that we have are theories and no real truths, I'll go with the best interpretation from the observable phenomena..........so a Big-Bang, Stringy & Godless Universe topped by an incomplete evolutionary jigsaw to explain why we observe it in the first place..........

[Thomas An.]

... My question would be do you think one can believe in God and yet continue to search for scientific explanations to explain the universe?

That would be like jumping to convenient conclusions.

Again, the idea that something was "created" is not a true answer either, because that "being" would be composed of something as well (probably composed of something else, but "something" nonetheless).

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." Einstein

It is *not* a good idea to idolise people. No matter how clever or famous they appear to be. Otherwise we are likely to propagate potential errors ad-infinitum without question. Einstein was not infalible... as a matter of fact his theories did have holes in them and he was very resistant to a new wave of explanations (relating to quantum mechanics) back then. In the end although some of his thoughts are still in use, main parts of his physical model is being challenged or overshadowed by more complete constructs.

[Maxer]

Exactly my point, at the time Einstein was the smartest man alive, his theories changed the world and now those same theories are being questioned. He and most of the world believed they knew what was going on, that their scientific understanding of the universe was correct, it turns out that's not the case. Why do we now think that we have all the answers and that those answers are correct? Is it possible that we are missing the forest for the trees?

[tom]

Well, imagine Maxwell Render. We have limited parameters but we can create practically unlimited renders. However, in fact the amount of possible renders are theoretically limited. Now see, everyday we enhance our knowledge about science and we discover numerous new things in this universe. But this is the problem. What I was trying to say is we can practically discover many new things but unfortunately it seems like they all belong to this space. This is what disturbs me. You know just one planet or you know billion planets and imagine you meet hundreds of new civilizations on other planets, too.... and then? What's very different than now while trying to answer the existance? So, guess it was big bang or big bangs or we just appeared once in a sudden, this changes nothing. The problem is the reason, the question and we invented the question itself. Consciousness seems like an illusion to me, too. If consciousness is just a set of well organized atoms (or better say -infinite size particles), it's not logical the possibility of this system might master itself. In other words, a computer is still the old abacus.

[Thomas An.]

Well, it seems likely that Religions also originated to fill an emotional need, something that persists even when you have your "theory of everything".

Well, I was hoping for a discussion in astronomy, but (I supose should be expected) it turned into a belief thing.

Now about emotion ... sure it is possible to approach it from that (emotional) angle too (an equation can be approached in a number of ways but should ideally yield the same solution).

Firstly, we would need to understand what emotion is (which is a topic on its own) ... but briefly ... it's a "feedback mechanism" a push-pull reward system for the purpose of preservation. Conscious thought is used to act on sensory input as a pattern recognition, comparator/processing action and then emotion acts as a validation system depending on the outcome. If the conscious thought results in a decision and that decision creates an action and that action brings a detrimental outcome, then emotion is used to etch this bad experience to memory for future avoidance. Conversely, if the outcome was beneficial then emotion (via endorphin reward) etches a positive flag into memory and the activity gets a green light. So emotion is essentially the validation aspect of conscious thought. That is the reason that people who artificially temper with their emotional state (via recreational substances) are usually at a mental tormoil, because they are breaking/interfering with their own feedback system.

Now if we move away from the ancient (and more physically based) existence... towards a modern and more cerebrally based life. Emotion is still used as validation; including in more abstract thought processes. For example, solving a math equation, puzzle, or problem correctly produces a positive emotional reward. The subconscious inference being that "if I have the capability to generate logical sequences capable of creating a low entropy solution it implies a healthy and fault tolerant neural network. This "implied" health is expected to be beneficial in survival situations and therefore a positive emotional response is issued by the subconscious to validate this action. The amplitude of the response doesn't have to be strong ... but a series of small ones have a cumulative effect (which over the years also forms the precoursor of what we call "comfidence")

Given this context, then a process involving series of meticulous reasoning steps, in a systematic study (and chartography) of natural phenomena .... each step being validated against reality. Such validation process of successful experimental verification (working backwords to prove when theory matches reality) also produces positive emotional feedback; due to survival benefit implications of decripting the unknown. In that sense the consistency of positive thought (positive science) is quite a rewarding undertaking. As a matter of fact, reason, (highly structured concsistency) is the one thing that makes me (that is personal thing of course) feel pefectly at peace ...

[tom]

Keeping the subject in the boundaries of "Astronomy"... it's not possible. Because Astronomy is a building made of collected perceptions evaluated by our so called physically existing neural network with the help of biological sensors. So, the solutions of any science we've developed is limited with our perceptional capabilities. Sadly, it's dead end. We can discuss within boundaries of astronomy of course but isn't the question "Big Bang" looking for existance, anyway? So, why should we limit the answer into one science? Because other explanations are not scientific? I'm not a scienceman and I have very limited knowledge about science but isn't it clear that science won't bring an unexpected magic? We'll keep discovering endless things but the question will remain the same. Worst of all, as much as we learn, we put one more padlock upon us. I would first start to find an answer for perception, then I would try to develop further science. With an unknown perception system we have it's just like being blind... We trust ourselves too much.

[Thomas An.]

Well, imagine Maxwell Render. We have limited parameters but we can create practically unlimited renders. However, in fact the amount of possible renders are theoretically limited. Now see, everyday we enhance our knowledge about science and we discover numerous new things in this universe. But this is the problem. What I was trying to say is we can practically discover many new things but unfortunately it seems like they all belong to this space. This is what disturbs me. You know just one planet or you know billion planets and imagine you meet hundreds of new civilizations on other planets, too.... and then? What's very different than now while trying to answer the existance? So, guess it was big bang or big bangs or we just appeared once in a sudden, this changes nothing. The problem is the reason, the question and we invented the question itself. Consciousness seems like an illusion to me, too. If consciousness is just a set of well organized atoms (or better say -infinite size particles), it's not logical the possibility of this system might master itself. In other words, a computer is still the old abacus.

No, the thing is that the ultimate answer is actually irrelevant. No matter what the origin was ... we are still here and we are still "programmed" (by a creature or by nature) with a set of behaviors. No matter what the origin was we still act according the those innate instructions.

This quest of refining our understanding is a matter of survival. What we are doing is the equivalent of "curve approximation" in math.... reality has thrown a curve at us and we are now trying to derive an equation that accurately traces that curve (like in the Newton-Raphson method for example). If we can accurately emulate reality as closely as possible then we have more chances of survival (not only as individuals but as a species in general). On the other hand, if our understanding is crude and inefficient, then it can be detrimental in the long run.

Knowledge ... in the context of survival.
(but we are not very good at that right now ... our immaturity in controlling the implementation of our knowldge is merely destroying our biosphere and everything in it)

[sidenimjay]

all things are answered in death......

just a statement not a suggestion....

[Thomas An.]

Keeping the subject in the boundaries of "Astronomy"... it's not possible. Because Astronomy is a building made of collected perceptions evaluated by our so called physically existing neural network with the help of biological sensors. So, the solutions of any science we've developed is limited with our perceptional capabilities. Sadly, it's dead end. We can discuss within boundaries of astronomy of course but isn't the question "Big Bang" looking for existance, anyway? So, why should we limit the answer into one science? Because other explanations are not scientific? I'm not a scienceman and I have very limited knowledge about science but isn't it clear that science won't bring an unexpected magic? We'll keep discovering endless things but the question will remain the same. Worst of all, as much as we learn, we put one more padlock upon us. I would first start to find an answer for perception, then I would try to develop further science. With an unknown perception system we have it's just like being blind... We trust ourselves too much.

It is not totally useless as you try to say. The aproximations and sensory becomes inaccurate depending in distance (in the macro or micro level), but the scientific constructs do validate within the range of reality where we exist. For example our equations were able to properly identify a planet (named Mars) or a moon named Titan. Plot a trajectory. Send a vehicle ... and actually find something there. This is a case where observations and theory worked synergistically and then verified by the existance of the subject in question.

[tom]

No matter what the origin was ... we are still here...

If you were out of senses, you wouldn't be thinking like that and it wouldn't make sense even if the other ones which you cannot feel know you exist. Just like it's not possible to talk about the relative existance of things we are not able to perceive other than using our senses. Here, infrared etc (things beyond our perceptions limits) cannot be examples because we don't experience them as long as something don't transform them into something possible to perceive by us. Anything else* which cannot be identified with the current transformation technologies is being tagged as "non-existing" things. Million years ago we were not aware of waveforms but they were there, however if we couldn't discover them, they would remain tagged as "non-existing". It's highly possible the discovered amount of existing things is quite less than what is really exisiting or maybe everything is made of nothingness which we fabricate and tag as they are existing. Kill the 5 senses first and retry.

[tom]

For example our equations were able to properly identify a planet (named Mars) or a moon named Titan. Plot a trajectory. Send a vehicle ... and actually find something there. This is a case where observations and theory worked synergistically and then verified by the existance of the subject in question.

Experiencing such a thing requires being donated with senses, ability to see, ability to hear, etc ..just one or more of them but it's not possible without any of them. Why we're so used to trust our senses too much? Strange but, if there's no human left in the universe, what would make it stay real or what would make it measurable? Who would measure, who would develop science etc? Would it be still valuable just because there would be chance of re-existing?