:)<quoted text>
We are all stardust  Carl Sagan.
Yes... yes we are.
There are 9494 comments on the The Sydney Morning Herald story from May 30, 2010, titled Who is an atheist?. In it, The Sydney Morning Herald reports that:
In my last blog there was a moderately spectacular blue between various parties .Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Sydney Morning Herald.
“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes” Since: Dec 06 86,355 Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA 
#9548
Aug 24, 2013
:) Yes... yes we are. 
Ely, UK 
#9549
Aug 24, 2013
Ohhh,,, not just shakespears lungs,, but many lungs, how about, anything that has ever lived or breathed . As an aside,,, as I understand things the Bard never had the oppourtunity to sample coffee or tea, tut tut. There is level of evidence to suggest that the man suffered from a degreee of plaguerism, not that it really matters,,, as people are often so easily taken in on other levels, which have far more importance on everyday life where truth is concerned. 
“Think&Care” Since: Oct 07 24,462 Location hidden 
#9550
Aug 24, 2013
We are star dust, We are golden, We are billion year old carbon, ..... 
“Think&Care” Since: Oct 07 24,462 Location hidden 
#9551
Aug 24, 2013
In actuality, the longer interval has the same cardinality as the shorter one, even thought they are of different lengths. Exactly. Different notions of 'size'. It is now classic to let time be another dimension (whether it is the fourth or the first is a metter of convention). The problem comes in when doing general relativity when spacetime (the four dimensional geometry) is curved (like the two dimensional sphere is curved). Mostly. 
“Think&Care” Since: Oct 07 24,462 Location hidden 
#9552
Aug 24, 2013
Nothing particularly elusive about it. It is just the integral in four dimensions. You can even do 'cylindrical' coordinates, where three coordinates are linear, a version of 'spherical' where two are linear, and another version of 'spherical' where only one is linear. There is even a double version of polar, two radii and two angles. As you go up dimensions, it gets even more interesting! 
Ely, UK 
#9553
Aug 24, 2013
What would happen if you ran this through a Black hole?????????? 
Delhi, India 
#9555
Aug 24, 2013
Are you telling me that the set of points in a one meter line segment, and the set of points in a two meter line segment both have the same cardinality? I don't think one can even say that about the sets of points in two different line segments BOTH one meter long! I do not think you can compare infinities like you can compare numbers. Can you? Agree one Dimension is not higher or lower than another. I think integrating an 'n' dimension space is like sweeping it through the (n+1)th dimension. You can do it in math assuming the (n+1)th dimension exists, but in reality if that dimension does not exist, such math is just fiction. That is, you can only sweep a 2D plane thru 3D space, IF AND ONLY IF 3D space exists already, to get your 3D shape. Or you can sweep a point (0D) along any single (EXISTING) dimension (1D space) to get a line. ALSO if you integrate a 2D object/shape along time, do you get Cinema! AND if you integrate a 3D shape/object/matter thru time, do we get movement and 'real' physical EVENTS? Do you think TIME is a pure physical entity? Or a purely logical one? That is:exists only in our mind?, born from our sense of before and after, a side effect of our ability to store information and compare? Finally, if a fourth spatial dimension exists, and there are beings that live in it, are we to them what a character in a movie is to us! 
Delhi, India 
#9556
Aug 24, 2013
I think the coordinate systems only help us study the various dimensions, and locate points in them, express shapes in them etc. Unless I am wrong? 
“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes” Since: Dec 06 86,355 Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA 
#9557
Aug 24, 2013
Yes....! :) 
“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes” Since: Dec 06 86,355 Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA 
#9558
Aug 24, 2013
Clearly, you and I have somewhat different ideas about what constitutes... ... "interesting". <laughing my azz off at me, here... > 
Delhi, India 
#9560
Aug 24, 2013
Consciousness may be thought of as 'emergent' from the interactions between neurons. [Check out "emergence theory"] But I do not think so. To me emergence is just a failure of the thinker to go into the details. The fact that we can not yet study consciousness, and do not not know if it has structure or not, does not mean we never will. The atom was once unbreakable. I have made a few attempts to code consciousness, and failed. Maybe next time? There is no perhaps, for the journey into knowledge must start with the knowledge of ourselves. All our physical senses feed into our mind, and all the information or knowledge we get about the universe, we get it through our mind. That we are a pattern matching machine is too obvious. We are continually receiving patterns of data from our eyes (a pattern formed by light on our retina) or ears (a pattern of sound). Then we store that data as a pattern, then we accept another pattern, and compare with the saved pattern. So the child learns to recognize shapes and then motion (or observe that a certain kind of sound pattern arrives with a certain kind of light pattern, like the striking of a piano key along with its note) This (storing and matching of patterns) we do, not just with data from external senses, but internally too, ie with our thoughts too, which are just a pattern of comparison results or decisions, which we then recognize as thoughts. SO THOUGHTS DO HAVE A STRUCTURE. It is beyond that, that things get blurry to me. What is consciousness? Is it the ability to do all those things together? Our ability to store patterns of decisions that makes us 'conscious'? 
Delhi, India 
#9561
Aug 24, 2013
As we compare two patterns, the pattern already in there in memory, must be the before right? So if we could not store patterns, we would not sense time! Our memory, our ability to store information gives us our sense of time. So now will time still exist for us if we are no longer able to do this storing? Like when we are dead? 
Wheatley, Canada 
#9562
Aug 24, 2013
time travel is impossible bc past doesnt exist, and neither does future,all that exists is now,, 
Since: Aug 13 26 Delhi, India 
#9563
Aug 24, 2013
That I can agree with. It gives us the sense that we only exist in the present. Fact is, we perceive our existence using our senses. And as we get our sensory information, whether external or internal, we perceive as the PRESENT INSTANT. We are such beings that we can get input information only one pattern at a time, so we can see only only point of time. [Then I could be wrong, but at least I trying to see things differently.] 
Since: Aug 13 26 Delhi, India 
#9564
Aug 24, 2013
I used to think so too. Wrote a poem about that in 2007. Sort of still do. But then again, is that only for beings like us? 
Winnipeg, Canada 
#9566
Aug 25, 2013
 atheist are those who reject GOD'S WAYS and therefor they reject GOD... The lake of fire is waiting for them...

Cambridge, UK 
#9568
Aug 25, 2013
You silly gulible sod,,, how old are you. 
“Think&Care” Since: Oct 07 24,462 Location hidden 
#9569
Aug 25, 2013
There are many ways to generalize the way that finite numbers are compared. Cardinality is just one of them. So, once again, we say that two sets have the same cardinality if there is a way to pair them off so that every point of one is paired to exactly one point of the other. This holds for two line segments, one of which is twice the length of the other. A quick way to see this is to imagine the segments to be parallel, the short one above the long one. Draw the line through the left endpoints and find where it intersects the line drawn through the right endpoints. To make the pairing, just draw a line through this intersection point, through any point on the short line and extend until it intersects the long line. That gives the correspondence between points on the short and long lines. Clearly, each point on each line is associated with exactly one point on the other. So the two line segments have the same cardinality. From a purely mathematical perspective, an ndimensional space is just one that is described by n decimal numbers. So, three dimensional space requires numbers associated with leftright, backfront, and updown:(x,y,z). There is no real problem looking at four coordinates, say (x,y,z,w), and doing the same type of geometric/algebraic manipulations that are done for 2D and 3D. There are even infinite dimensional versions that are wellknown and actively studied. By the way, this is why I described the surface of a sphere as *two* dimensional: you only need two coordinates to locate a point on the surface of a sphere (latitude and longitude, for example). It is a *curved* twodimensional surface, though. Time is definitely a physical entity. It can be distorted through mass and energy. It is also a valid dimension since a point in spacetime requires three dimensions to locate it in space and another one for the position in time. That gives four coordinates. Now, when studying gravity, it turns out that this four dimensional spacetime is *curved*. 
“Think&Care” Since: Oct 07 24,462 Location hidden 
#9570
Aug 25, 2013
Um, time is measured all the time. I bet if you look at the tray on your computer, you see a measurement of time. It's called a clock. To determine a position in spacetime required four numbers: three for space and one for time. That makes spacetime four dimensional. I certainly don't see why time cannot be used in equations. In fact, of course, it is done all the time. Newton started the subject of modern physics by considering how things change in position and velocity, which is based on time as a variable describing the position of a particle. In fact,*all* modern physics, when it looks at dynamics, uses time in some way. Why you think it is an obstacle is beyond me. Perhaps if you took an elementary calculus based physics course, you would see how time can be used mathematically. 
“Think&Care” Since: Oct 07 24,462 Location hidden 
#9571
Aug 25, 2013
First, you have to be clear about what you mean by 'time travel': we are all traveling into the future at the rate of 1 minute every 60 seconds. Nothing strange about that. Also, observers moving at high speeds with respect to each other will disagree about when two events happen at the same time: the term 'now' is not physically well defined when changing reference frames. This shows your statement that 'now' is the only thing that exists is simply wrong. The best way to talk about time travel is in the context of general relativity. Since different observers can disagree about whether things happen at the same time, the concept of the 'future' is vague. That said, there is an observerindependent concept called the 'future light cone'(there is also a past light cone). All causality happens from the past light cone to the future light cone. The statement that time travel is impossible is, essentially, the claim that there are no *loops* in spacetime that are always pointed into the future light cones (closed, timelike loops). I think every working physicist believes such are impossible in the real world, but we don't have any good mathematical reasons for saying so. 
 
Title  Updated  Last By  Comments 

"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12)  6 min  John  76,835 
Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ...  7 min  The FACTory  682 
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09)  1 hr  Eagle 12   258,470 
Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17)  16 hr  Dogen  4,291 
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li...  Jul 19  Eagle 12   10 
The war on Christmas (Dec '10)  Jul 18  John  4,952 
Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09)  Jul 18  John  32,164 
Find what you want!
Search Atheism Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC