email@example.com wrote: >>>>>> WHEN THE UNIVERSE WAS DARK... >>>>>> ============================= >Well, be honest then and say that you are using the idea of self-similarity in >the allegorical (or poetic) sense and not in any scientific sense. No. It's as scientific as any other application of the theory. >When you >begin (and continue) to discuss the matter as if Mandelbrot would agree with >you and his theory says so, you put yourself in an untenable position. Mandelbrot put forward the idea of similarity on different scales [I personally went to a lecture he gave at the Australian National University and read one of his books]. He gave examples of the coastline and the branching structure of a tree. He proposed that this "similarity on different scales" was a underlying principle in many natural phoneme. He continued to show such complexity could be generated by repeating relatively simple mathematical formulae many times. He was heading towards saying complexity is not so wonderful after-all, it can be generated by simple mathematical equations. That is his theory as he presented it himself. I can apply that theory to another example. Whether Mandelbrot would agree or not has nothing to do with it. He has proposed set-similarity as a broad natural phenomenon and I have applied it in terms of the creation. How is this not reasonable? >Lump that with the fact that you show yourself to be very dismissive of the >scientific process, you appear to be out to discredit it and those who pursue >any part of it (In fact you are still doing it) and you create the wrong >impression (or is it the right one?). I don't dismiss the scientific process. It is a valid process, but time consuming and always imperfect. It depends on our sense perception and our senses are not perfect. That is the limitation to the scientific process. Perfect knowledge can only be obtained if you find a perfect authority. The Vedas gives the example of finding your father. The authority is your mother, she's the one who can tell you who your father is. So the Vedas is likened to our mother because it is there we can find perfect knowledge. >> Your [the scientific community's] refusal to at least even >> theoretically consider the existence of the soul, something different >> from matter whose symptom is consciousness, despite the very strong >> indications that such an entity exists, is unreasonable and >> closed-minded. >Personally, I have never discarded the idea of a creator. I have my own >conceptions on what he might (and might not) be like. What *is* closeminded >is the lack of consideration of the possibility that he /she/it doesn't exist. We know He exists. We have seen Him. We are continually experiencing His presence. So we don't have to consider the possibility there is no creator, because we know Him. [I know this may be difficult for you to relate to, there is one verse "atmavan manyate jagat", "What I am thinking, the whole world is thinking." That is the tendancy. But just because you have not seen God doesn't mean no one has seen God. (this is alt.religion so I can say there things!)] >> A world-view based on spiritual concepts is not invalid. >I never said it was. You brought in the "scientific" theories. How can they be "scientific" if they fail to consider spiritual science? What is the reason they discount God from their theories? Why can't I postulate a "scientific" theory which includes God? Who could claim such a theory was invalid? Would it not be just as valid as Darwin's theory or the big bang theory? >> It may not make sense in your terms but you have to realize that, >> although you have your "negative enthropy" to create everything around >> us one who has seen the creator is not very convinced by such empty >> talk. >Is that you or your master (that has seen the creator?) I have seen Him and can always see Him. >> You can talk and talk (I've seen it in sci.astro and >> talk.origins) but you will never come to agreement and you will never >> reach a conclusion until you consider the spiritual component. >Probably not even then. One has to accept the correct authority, that's all. If we are in a lecture theater and there is some noise on the roof every student inside the lecture theater may develop his own "noise theory". They may all be valid from the "scientific" point of view, but they may also all be wrong. However if there was someone on the roof who saw what happened he is the correct authority. He can tell us what happened. ><small snip> >> Science has very nicely provided the philosophy which enables >> atheists to live lives free from responsibility for their activities. >> Science is their religion. If it wasn't for Charles Darwin and the Big >> Bang Theory they would find it difficult to justify their atheistic >> beliefs. Before Darwin the Western atheists didn't have any way of >> explaining the creation [without God's hand] so they were very grateful >> to him and the scientific world. They are holding on to these >> theories [evolution and the big bang] like grim death. Any slight >> criticism [or even questioning] brings hostile results. It's a faith, >> it's a religion, it's a dogma. It's supported by our imperfect sense >> perceptions and speculations therefore there is no guarantee it has >> anything to do with what is actually happening out there. >Perhaps some athiests do this. I am neither an atheist nor treat knowledge in >a dogmatic way. The history of science should show people that new ideas may >be necessary. And I would agree that science is but one avenue to "the truth" >(for want of a better description). >However, let's be honest and treat all knowledge with respect. If you want to >use science then understand what it says first and THEN explain why the >interpretation is incorrect. It is not that hard and metaphysical discussions >are not that unusual. These arise whenever you discuss quantum mechanics. The interpretation may not be incorrect in the "scientific" framework. Science has little to do with reality. It's about creating models based on some underlying hypotheses which explain what we see around us. It doesn't say they are correct. They have started with the hypothesis that everything can be explained in terms of matter only this is the foundation of "science" as we know it. They have "faith" that everything can be explained within the framework of measurable material quantities. Perhaps quantum mechanics is reaching the boundaries of science constrained by this initial assumption? Perhaps quantum mechanics will force the scientific community to discard this initial assumption? >> Somebody told me [in another group]: >>>Einstien said, "science is like looking at a face of a watch and trying >>>to figure out how it works inside." When we have theorys on how nature >>>works, sometimes we will prove it wrong, sometimes we can never prove it >>>wrong, because it is right. Re: The moon and the sun theory/fact! >> Exactly, it's a great statement. You can take a number of watches which >> all display the correct time but inside the watches the mechanics could >> be completely different. Externally they are identical. The same thing >> holds with the universe. You can develop many different models (like >> the workings of the different watches) which give the same result as we >> see in the sky (like all the watches display the same time). Just as >> you can't determine what the mechanism is inside the watch by looking >> at it, you can't tell the "mechanism" of the universe by looking >> through your telescope. >Plato also considered our reality as some "shadow" of the true perfect world. That's the spiritual world, our real home: pars tasmat tu bhavo 'nyo 'vyakto 'vyaktat sanatanah yah sa sarvesu bhutesu nasyatsu na vinasyati "Yet there is another nature, which is eternal and is transcendental to this manifested and unmanifested matter. It is supreme and is never annihilated. When all in this world is annihilated, that part remains as it is." (Bhagavad-gita 8.20) >Science doesn't (and probably cannot) deal with things outside of the >physical. I am open to this limitation. What it does tell us though, is how >much we can put down to the physical. This can only help all of us understand >anything else that *might* be left over (if anything). The difficulty is if the underlying assumption is "everything can be explained by physical things" one then ignores things which cannot be explained in such a way. He pretends they don't exist. If you get enough people together who incorporate this assumption into their world view then when someone talks about the spiritual existence it can be a little difficult... However if someone comes up with a very shaky theory that supports their "world-view" [big bang, Darwin] they are very enthusiastic to accept it "warts and all". >> So you can't actually tell what's going on out there. How absolutely >> ridiculous it is that you think you can understand how the universe was >> created billions of years ago. I don't know if you read about Dr. Frog >> but his story is very relevant. You [and everyone else] have become >> accustomed to these ideas, they have been thoroughly drummed into us by >> the education system and mostly everybody accepts them. They are not >> just scientific theories, they are the backbone of the modern >> hedonistic way of life. They are the mainstay of the "atheistic" >> religion. >Well, they are the backbone of *modern* life ... because they work! Hedonists >will use whatever is available jor justification (see ancient Rome). Atheism >simply relies on the fact that accounts of god and the spiritual world are >(unfortunately) generally unreliable. In India the atheists have many theories. They have a sex theory, they have an atomic theory... So it's true they will use whatever works to justify their lifestyle. The Vedic accounts of God and the spiritual world are not unreliable. Nor are the Vedic scriptures describing the material world. >I wouldn't be to quick to criticise the "modern education system. What your >writing shows to me (IMHO), is your own myopia in terms of looking at >different points of view. The education system is only teaching material knowledge. It's preparing students for a 60 year period [at most] and telling them, "That's all there is, make the most of it." If the soul is actually eternal this 60 years is insignificant compared with an eternity. But human life is special, we have good brains, we can ponder the more subtle questions of our existence... If we are educated [brainwashed] into believing there are no subtle questions and the best thing is money and sex we have missed a very great opportunity... >> When talking about these two items [Darwinism and the big bang] we >> touch on matters very close to many peoples hearts for without them we >> might just have to consider God may exist after all. >With or without them you still should consider "god". The uncomforatble >thing for theists (_and_ the rest of us) is that *with* them, you HAVE >to consider the possibility of no god. You can also see God if you want to, it's not so difficult. Then there will be no need to consider He's not there. (But He won't spoil your fun if you don't want to see him!) naham prakasah sarvasya yoga-maya-samavrtah mudho 'yam nabhijanati loko mam ajam avyayam "I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I am unborn and infallible." >> The conclusion of this discussion in another area [not scientists] >> ended up like this: >> >>Jennacy Backo <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >>>email@example.com (Madhudvisa dasa ) wrote: >> << snip >> >>>Neither do the rest of us. All the scientists are trying to do is give >>>us a rational culmination of ideas, using data on information they have, >>>to allow those of us who are not religiously-affiliated (like me) to have >>>their own little "How The Universe Was Created" story. So far, i think >>>it's done rather well. >> << snip >> >>>Therefore >>>> a thoughtful person has to at least consider that Krishna may exist and >>>> He may have created the universe. >>>Okay, I will grant you that. But nothing more. >Sure, Krishna, Allah, God, invisible pink unicorns etc. could all have (singly >or together) created the universe. I didn't say anything about any of them. >I only picked on your use of "science". Thank you. Hare Krishna. Thank you. Hare Krishna! Madhudvisa dasa (firstname.lastname@example.org) /sudarsana All glories to His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!