Let us stretch our mind II - three tough questions

[Mtazamaji]

If we are talking about Faith..., then yes. But there are people of no faith, therefore we can say there are supernatural powers which we have no way of finding out or proving....,

What is being done now is playing up with theories with lots of assumptions.

Yes nakubaliana na wewe but faith haina mipaka just for christian, muslim Hindues etc . Those people unaosema hawana faith actually faith yao ndiyo hizohizo tunazosema "supernatural"

Ndio maana unaweza kufanya conlusion kuwa hata baadhi ya wanasayansi faith yao ni kuwa kuna "super natural power". kwa nini nasema hivyo ? Wanakwepa kutumia neno GOD but thye are talking there is something that is unexplainable according to them

Nasema hivyo kwa sababu ya sentensi ya "What we dont know" So science smetime inatumia belief

 

[Kituko]

lets discuss answer to these three questions:
1. What is the universe?
2. What composes (makes) the universe?
3. What is the shape of the universe?

1) Universe ni mjumuisho wa Galaxy nyingi tu ikiwemo Milkyway Galaxy
2)na Galaxy ni Muungano wa Sayari, Nyota, Vimondo, satelites na vitu vingine ambavyo bado havijakuwa discovered
3) Hakuna uniform shape ya Universe inayojulikana, lakini kutokana na nature ya mizunguko basi kwa asilimia kubwa itakuwa kwenye form ya Duara, OVal, Sphere na aina hiyo ya shape

 

[YeshuaHaMelech]

What is being done now is playing up with theories with lots of assumptions.

Right here comes two camp, yes from assumptions they make and beliefs. i know of finest PhD minds from both camps but they don't agree on presuppositions!

They both have same lab equipments and same experiment bringing the same results. But interpretation differ basing on belief. If you believe in evolution then you interpret data in term of random blind process working over time with time and chance. Nothing that contradicts this is permitted in interpretation of data. The same applies to creation camp, where taking God out of the picture is anathema. It sounds to me the war is right there at their religions. I mean they both have initials that MUST be believed and that forms the whole framework of interpreting data!

So both creationism and evolutionism to me sounds religious. Only difference is one sneaked into science textbooks and got carried where science went and other was not!

That is my view on the underlying assumptions

 

[YeshuaHaMelech]

I would like to thanks everybody who have and will throw his cents in the bucket, and may I give a big complement at how everybody present his views with calmness and honesty!

That is good and I wish it would got inherited in all other posts and threads. I will encourage those who think they know little. Just throw that little...a thousand is never a thousand if one cent is missing...welcome all

 

[kotinkarwak]

I never got to appreciate the role of our tiny moon to the existence of life on earth, the control of tides, the immense power it has in maintaining how our planets rotation and tilt towards the sun plays a pivitol role in life existing on earth till I watched a program on the subject, believe just a couple of weeks back. The gravitational pull/push the tow exerts on each other means we are roughly hurtling in a symphony around the sun permitting life to exist.
Without such minute measure, the planets tilt could not be at the 23.5 Degrees axis to the sun, allowing for seasons, allowing for life as we know it to exist. Now this kind of knowledge was assumed but only now have scientists been able to quantify their speculations and from these two planetary masses only we find that the balancing act permits life whereas other planets are not able to provide similar conditions for life to exist.
Looking outward, we also see the same gravitational pull/push earth is faced with all allowing it at the planets around it to continue the symphony and that magic just continues on and on.

 

[YeshuaHaMelech]

I never got to appreciate the role of our tiny moon to the existence of life on earth, the control of tides, the immense power it has in maintaining how our planets rotation and tilt towards the sun plays a pivitol role in life existing on earth till I watched a program on the subject, believe just a couple of weeks back. The gravitational pull/push the tow exerts on each other means we are roughly hurtling in a symphony around the sun permitting life to exist.
Without such minute measure, the planets tilt could not be at the 23.5 Degrees axis to the sun, allowing for seasons, allowing for life as we know it to exist. Now this kind of knowledge was assumed but only now have scientists been able to quantify their speculations and from these two planetary masses only we find that the balancing act permits life whereas other planets are not able to provide similar conditions for life to exist.
Looking outward, we also see the same gravitational pull/push earth is faced with all allowing it at the planets around it to continue the symphony and that magic just continues on and on.

Yaani we acha tu! This universe is well tuned...very tuned to not believe that some intelligent being Monkeyed with it somehow
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dimensionless physical constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kotinkarwak]

YeshuaHaMelech
Can this topic be revived, it has been hidden amongst all the other "meaningful" topics clogging the JF forum.

 

[IT Guru]

lets discuss answer to these three questions:<br />
1. What is the universe?<br />
2. What composes (makes) the universe?<br />
3. What is the shape of the universe?

<br />
<br />
the universe is within your mind

 

[Given Edward]

Nilishaanza kufurahi nikadhani Yeshua karudi. I miss him. His threads.

 

[Amoeba]

Stephen Hawking ametumia zaidi ya nusu ya maisha yake kuresearch mammbo haya, hajawahi kuja najibu conclusive!! Not even your GOD knows one of these!!!

 

[kotinkarwak]

Amoeba,
Give credit where it is due. SHowkins aliamzisha kitabu, akakiacha open ili watu wengine wachangie. Haikuwa lazima yeye peke yake atoe hoja na kuimaliza, as opposed to some other notable works ambazo, ni closed subject.
Saw something on CNN recently about the advancement in the technological field ambazo zimefanyika in the last 8 years. At the beginning of that time line, facebook, twitter, cloud computing na wenzao hawakuweko, lakini hivi sasa unless one is living under a rock, it is common knowledge, nakuwa, their presence has pushed the advancement of the supporting technology since there was/is a need for these services. In that same break, I would hope that, kama haya maswali yangepewa muda kuwa discussed/analysed at the same level of the mentioned "needs" for facebook, twitter, labda chapter mbili tatu zingeongezwa katika hicho SHowkings alichokianza.

 

[Kiranga]

Please clarify some points here VoR


So what is exactly this universe is? You will hear some phrases like "the universe is expanding", so if you say the universe is everything then don't you see it does not make sense? How can everything expand? what is it expanding into?

Whenthey say that, they mean space is stretching like a balloon. What is it expanding to? The Multiverse. That superset of other bubbles of billions and billions of other universes.

But infinity is not a shape! and you didnt say what is a composition of the universe!

Due to its homogenuous nature regardless of direction, and it's cosmogony in the big bang, and as supported by the COBE and subsequent maps the universe is ultimately a circle/ elliptic shape[/QUOTE]

Mind you, there is a big chunk of the universe that is not observable and whose light/ electromagnetic signal cannot reach as because as the universe (space all over the universe) continues to expand, more distance is required to be covered by signals from this part of our universe, and even if the signal travels at the speed of light for an infinite amount of time, they wont rach us because every point in the universe is moving away from every other point in this expansion, and the further away two points are, the faster are they moving apart. This is why it is harder to detect this expansion on a micro level such as solar system but when you go to intergalactic levels and start to observe the rdshift of quasars the expansion is very dramatic.

 

[Kiranga]

Yaani we acha tu! This universe is well tuned...very tuned to not believe that some intelligent being Monkeyed with it somehow
Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dimensionless physical constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Astronomer Royal (GB) Martin Rees has a book about this idea. Check the review and the six numbers essential for the existence of the universe as we know it that are too precise to be pure chance here[h=2]"Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe"[/h]
But the criticism of this view is the strong Anthropic principle, basically, the universe appears to be so wonderfully tailored for you because you exist to observe it, if it wasn't you wouldn't even exist to observe it in the first place. This is another way of saying we won the highly unlikely lotto of chances of existing as we are, and now we are wondering at the odds and saying somebody must have fixed things for us.

 

[Kiranga]

Right here comes two camp, yes from assumptions they make and beliefs. i know of finest PhD minds from both camps but they don't agree on presuppositions!

They both have same lab equipments and same experiment bringing the same results. But interpretation differ basing on belief. If you believe in evolution then you interpret data in term of random blind process working over time with time and chance. Nothing that contradicts this is permitted in interpretation of data. The same applies to creation camp, where taking God out of the picture is anathema. It sounds to me the war is right there at their religions. I mean they both have initials that MUST be believed and that forms the whole framework of interpreting data!

So both creationism and evolutionism to me sounds religious. Only difference is one sneaked into science textbooks and got carried where science went and other was not!

That is my view on the underlying assumptions

Ultimately, everything must start with a conception based in belief. The question is, how much of a margin of error are you allowing? How much of a rigid scrutiny are you allowing?

I feel creation allows a much bigger margin of error and less scrutiny than evolution.

In addition, if you allow creation to be your thing, you are faced with the inevitable question of where did god come from? Essentially asserting that you need a complex being to design the universe, will lead you to believe you need an even more complex being to design that complex being.

The beauty of evolution is the fact that it allows for a system that moves up in complexity, from the less complex non living matter to single celled virus and bacteria on to simple marine life and all the way to a thinking man. This process is not complicated by the requirement of a complex initiator which will require endless more complex initiators. It makes more sense and is consistent with naturally observed entropy.

Left alone, closed systems only increase complexity with time, and not the other way around. Evolution is more scientific than creation. Science allow more scrutiny than theism and therefore emerges as the superior prism to view nature.

 

[Kiranga]

Yes nakubaliana na wewe but faith haina mipaka just for christian, muslim Hindues etc . Those people unaosema hawana faith actually faith yao ndiyo hizohizo tunazosema "supernatural"

Ndio maana unaweza kufanya conlusion kuwa hata baadhi ya wanasayansi faith yao ni kuwa kuna "super natural power". kwa nini nasema hivyo ? Wanakwepa kutumia neno GOD but thye are talking there is something that is unexplainable according to them

Nasema hivyo kwa sababu ya sentensi ya "What we dont know" So science smetime inatumia belief

Actually the basis of science is in the natural, not the supernatural. Ndiyo maana msingi mmoja mkubwa wa sayansi ni experimenting/ observing.

You can't experiment with the supernatural, and because you can't experiment, the supernatural is not considered science.

Sasa sie tusioamini katika supernatural utatuitaje?

 

[Amoeba]

Amoeba,
Give credit where it is due. SHowkins aliamzisha kitabu, akakiacha open ili watu wengine wachangie. Haikuwa lazima yeye peke yake atoe hoja na kuimaliza, as opposed to some other notable works ambazo, ni closed subject.
Saw something on CNN recently about the advancement in the technological field ambazo zimefanyika in the last 8 years. At the beginning of that time line, facebook, twitter, cloud computing na wenzao hawakuweko, lakini hivi sasa unless one is living under a rock, it is common knowledge, nakuwa, their presence has pushed the advancement of the supporting technology since there was/is a need for these services. In that same break, I would hope that, kama haya maswali yangepewa muda kuwa discussed/analysed at the same level of the mentioned "needs" for facebook, twitter, labda chapter mbili tatu zingeongezwa katika hicho SHowkings alichokianza.

Kaka, sina ubishi wowote kwa hilo; Hawking ni cosmologist aliyebobea, hakuna physicist hai asiyemrespect huyu jamaa, mimi binafsi namheshimu na kumwona kama Genius pekee anayeishi kwa sasa! Hoja yangu ni kwamba, mtu aliye juu kabisa katika sayansi ya anga hajawahi kuja na jibu moja, si rahisi mwanadamu wa kawaida kuconclude kwamba "the universe is square", ama otherwise kwa sababu hakuna aliyeishi kuona mwisho wa universe, tutabaki kuamini tu kwamba it is "infinity", but no one is certain!

 

[Alexism]

Mkuu u believe and appraise HAWKING under which grounds.It seams u like limiting your ideological and intellectual evolution it worse.There is three things that we have to consider 1.Understanding the Universe in terms of MATTER,OBJECT OR IDEA?2.AS A LIVING,OBSERVATION OR BELIEVE? Then Hawking has place thus the discusion on UNIVERSE should rely on those grounds.

 

[Alexism]

Mkuu u believe and appraise HAWKING under which grounds.It seams u like limiting your ideological and intellectual evolution it is worse.There is things that we have to consider 1.Understanding the Universe in terms of MATTER,OBJECT OR IDEA?2.AS A LIVING,OBSERVATION OR BELIEVE? Then Hawking has no place to prove what the Universe is , then discusion on UNIVERSE should rely on those grounds.

 

[Kiranga]

Mkuu u believe and appraise HAWKING under which grounds.It seams u like limiting your ideological and intellectual evolution it is worse.There is things that we have to consider 1.Understanding the Universe in terms of MATTER,OBJECT OR IDEA?2.AS A LIVING,OBSERVATION OR BELIEVE? Then Hawking has no place to prove what the Universe is , then discusion on UNIVERSE should rely on those grounds.

Mazee andika kiswahili tu, sio lazima kiingereza.

Au afadhali hata ya hicho kiingereza?

 

[Kiranga]

Kaka, sina ubishi wowote kwa hilo; Hawking ni cosmologist aliyebobea, hakuna physicist hai asiyemrespect huyu jamaa, mimi binafsi namheshimu na kumwona kama Genius pekee anayeishi kwa sasa! Hoja yangu ni kwamba, mtu aliye juu kabisa katika sayansi ya anga hajawahi kuja na jibu moja, si rahisi mwanadamu wa kawaida kuconclude kwamba "the universe is square", ama otherwise kwa sababu hakuna aliyeishi kuona mwisho wa universe, tutabaki kuamini tu kwamba it is "infinity", but no one is certain!

If you are looking for certain, science is hardly your domain. Try religious dogmatism maybe.
Kuna watu mpaka leo wanaamini kwamba Einstein theory of relativity ina holes at some minute point na inaweza kuwa improved kama ilivyoweza kuiimprove Newtonian classical physics. And they are probably right if you get down to experiment with it at 99.99999999999999999999999% of the speed of light. Question is, if we cannot experiment with that now, is it even science to entertain the doubt? What is our acceptable margin of error? How useful has it been practically without these improvements? What is the cost of testing this? How long will our technological advancement pace need to achieve this wizardry?

The very fabric of the space-time continuum is plagued with quantum uncertainty.

This is why I stress on science as a process of gradually reducing the margin of error and converging towards certainty as opposed to looking for actual certainty.

Looking for actual certainty was disproved as an illusory fallacy ever since the Pascalian deterministic universe was debunked by quantum uncertainty.

The only thing we can know for sure is that we cannot know anything for sure, and even that we do not know for sure.

It's more educated to speak of phenomena in probabilistic terms.