I'm considerning accepting religion

**danbo** · 21-02-2007, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Just to redress the balance, I've been off the wagon this month .....

On or off the wagon Marmers, or are you just too damn drunk to remember anymore?

**William** · 21-02-2007, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

Originally Posted by stroller

I am considering accepting religion as well.

Alcohol is pure evil.

Oh Crap! not u too! i'm already drinkign enuff to make up for CMN and his multiple teetotalling nics - I cannt take care of u also !

Just to redress the balance, I've been off the wagon this month and tonight is the Bangers' Captain's Dinner, so it could be a rather messy evening.

Why wasn't I invited - aren't non-playing members invited to these things

I'll be having a word next time they want a sub out of me

Enjoy

**stroller** · 21-02-2007, 06:26 PM

Just to clarify:
Alcohol is evil when others indulge, specially Thai karaoke louts.
I was thinking of adapting Islam, so I could tell others to refrain from the habit, but still get plonked with mates in the safety of my home - my former landlord in Bkk has left a lasting impression on me as a rolemodel. He was around to scrounge booze and borrow money for gambling whenever his wife was out for the day, but objected to me having parties with my friends playing the guitar and stuff. Makes perfect sense in retrospect.

**kingwilly** · 22-02-2007, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by humphrey

Come on KW. For the sake of mankind. We'll give up and you can cover for us.

Ooh Okaaaay then, i if i haaaaaave to!

**Marmite the Dog** · 22-02-2007, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by William

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by kingwillyhggtb

Originally Posted by stroller

I am considering accepting religion as well.

Alcohol is pure evil.

Oh Crap! not u too! i'm already drinkign enuff to make up for CMN and his multiple teetotalling nics - I cannt take care of u also !

Just to redress the balance, I've been off the wagon this month and tonight is the Bangers' Captain's Dinner, so it could be a rather messy evening.

Why wasn't I invited - aren't non-playing members invited to these things

I'll be having a word next time they want a sub out of me

Enjoy

Didn't you opt out of being on the email list? I'm pretty sure you did. You missed a great night and I don't even remember puking my guts up at whatever timeI got home this morning.

**William** · 22-02-2007, 02:38 PM

I love the way the Poms equate a good night out with a good chucking session

**The Gentleman Scamp** · 23-02-2007, 08:17 AM

Why do you need religion?

Are you too lazy to think for yourself now?

**stroller** · 23-02-2007, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by The Gentleman Scamp

Are you too lazy to think for yourself now?

Religion is not about "thinking".

**DrB0b** · 23-02-2007, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by mrsquirrel

I've been teaching about the big bang theory and such like for the last week or so and it's got me thinking about how it all came about. The students asked lots of tricky questions about where the matter initially came from. Why it was there etc etc etc.

It got me thinking about "Why?".

Why did it all happen? I like the oscillating universe theory but it still doesn't answer where everything came from initially.

So I've started researching different religions to see if any of them fit my needs.

So Muslims, Christians, Scientologists et al why should I choose your religion and how does it fit with my scientific understanding of things?

OK, you asked for it, apologies in advance for the jargon

The problem here is that wthout the right mathematical background
it's extremely difficult to understand the current theories.

Must of the todays cutting-edge theoretical physics research is
in the field of quantum gravity. There are three main mathematical
approaches to this field. The first is Roger Penrose's Twistor theory
which theorises that space-time is a secondary, derived, concept
arising from a 4-dimensional complex space, the mathematics of this
is based on complex manifolds, algebraic geometry, and sheaf-cohomology.
The second approach attempts to describe fundamental physics through
non-commutative geometry while the the third, and, I think, most
interesting, approach is through loop quantum gravity.

In loop quantum gravity the basic tool is Riemannian quantum geometry.
In the established gravitational theories, ie Special Relativity, we
use differential geometry to formulate the theory, when formulating
loop quantum gravity theories we need to use a specific quantum Riemannian
geometry. This sounds like gibberish but you should understand that, from
the perspective of graph theory, freedom of construction of a quantum
theory of geometry is very limited. This means that the mathematical
structures we use are natural and essentially unique.

That's the background.

Your question was about the Big Bang so let's discuss that. The physics
most educated people are familiar with is the physics of general relativity.
On the big scale, the universe looks the same everywhere, (ie, in scientific
terms it's isotropic and homogenous). To model this (deep breath required!)
we begin by assuming that the 4-manifold representing space-time (3+1
dimensional) is foliated by 3-dimensional spatial manifolds, each with
a metric of constant curvature. Assuming that the leaves of the foliation
are metric 3-spheres then, even though the curvature is constant on any
one spatial slice, it changes in time, thus giving rise to an overall
expansion or contraction. The radius A of the 3-sphere encodes all the
information of the 3-metric at that instant of time. This is called the
scale factor. We can then model galaxies and other radiation sources
and look for solutions of Einsteins equation with these symmetries.
The equation implies that that the universe must have started with a big bang
so if we evolve the equation backwards in time the scale factor A must
eventually go to zero and the curvature diverges as 1/A^2. This
is the inital state of the Big Bang. Here, though, classical physics
stops, we cannot describe anything past this point. Many people assume
that, because they are only familiar with classical physics, that it's
impossible to go beyond this point. In terms of classical physics
that's true.

The description above is the accepted classical "proof" of the existence
of the Big Bang but we have a problem in that this is predicated on our
insistence on applying general relativity beyond its natural domain.

So what are the options? This has been a burning issue in physics for
three decades. Many attempts have been made to solve this problem
but sadly they've mostly involved fiddling the figures to make all
the equations balance out. However, recent work by Martin Bojowald
has shown that by applying loop quantum gravity the situation is very
different. In the standard procedure (the stuff above) the reduction
is classical and removes all traces of the fundamental discreteness.
Bojowalds method retains the features of quantum geometry first by
quantizing the kinematics of the full theory and then restricting
himself to quantum states that are isotropic and homogenous. This
means, among other things, that the scale factor now has discrete eigenvalues.

Now it gets complicated, the full explanation is long and difficult
so I'll try to summarise. There is much in this theory about what
happens at the time of the singularity but a surprising result of this theory
is that we can "see" past the classical singularity to the "time" before
the Big Bang. In mathematical jargon we can say that using the Thiemann
regularisation we can evolve in the past through n=0, (n=0 being the
Big Bang singularity). this being so we can ask what this state does at
negative times, i.e., before the big-bang. (Time becomes negative because
triads flip orientation on the ‘other side’.) It seems the state does not
become pre-classical there. If this is borne out by detailed
calculations, then the ‘big-bang’ separates two regimes; on ‘our’ side,
classical geometry is both meaningful and useful at late times while on the
‘other’ side, it is not.

This, of course, doesn't actually answer the question of exactly what
happened before the big bang, any more than religious apologists can
answer the question of who made God. It does however show that
scientific research into the subject is progressing, that theories
are being devised and tested, that new discoveries are constantly being
made.

Unfortunately, because of the level of mathematical knowledge required
to keep up with this research, many people are unaware of it and, of
those, many who are otherwise intelligent and enquiring will fall
back on the unproved and untested "God" hypothesis because, at an
uncritical level, it seems to provide the answers they want. If you
abandon science because it doesn't provide all the answers then
you've failed to understand what science is.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that if we don't know something we
should do the fine and noble thing and confess that we don't know
but hope that someday these questions can be answered without recourse
to magic or superstition.

**DrAndy** · 23-02-2007, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Milkman

I am not saying that science and religion are mutually exclusive

well, you should be

they are obviously exclusive

science tends to be based on the facts as we know them

religion is based on some belief, without any factual basis

**mrsquirrel** · 23-02-2007, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

OK, you asked for it, apologies in advance for the jargon The problem here is that wthout the right mathematical background it's extremely difficult to understand the current theories. Must of the todays cutting-edge theoretical physics research is in the field of quantum gravity. There are three main mathematical approaches to this field. The first is Roger Penrose's Twistor theory which theorises that space-time is a secondary, derived, concept arising from a 4-dimensional complex space, the mathematics of this is based on complex manifolds, algebraic geometry, and sheaf-cohomology. The second approach attempts to describe fundamental physics through non-commutative geometry while the the third, and, I think, most interesting, approach is through loop quantum gravity. In loop quantum gravity the basic tool is Riemannian quantum geometry. In the established gravitational theories, ie Special Relativity, we use differential geometry to formulate the theory, when formulating loop quantum gravity theories we need to use a specific quantum Riemannian geometry. This sounds like gibberish but you should understand that, from the perspective of graph theory, freedom of construction of a quantum theory of geometry is very limited. This means that the mathematical structures we use are natural and essentially unique. That's the background. Your question was about the Big Bang so let's discuss that. The physics most educated people are familiar with is the physics of general relativity. On the big scale, the universe looks the same everywhere, (ie, in scientific terms it's isotropic and homogenous). To model this (deep breath required!) we begin by assuming that the 4-manifold representing space-time (3+1 dimensional) is foliated by 3-dimensional spatial manifolds, each with a metric of constant curvature. Assuming that the leaves of the foliation are metric 3-spheres then, even though the curvature is constant on any one spatial slice, it changes in time, thus giving rise to an overall expansion or contraction. The radius A of the 3-sphere encodes all the information of the 3-metric at that instant of time. This is called the scale factor. We can then model galaxies and other radiation sources and look for solutions of Einsteins equation with these symmetries. The equation implies that that the universe must have started with a big bang so if we evolve the equation backwards in time the scale factor A must eventually go to zero and the curvature diverges as 1/A^2. This is the inital state of the Big Bang. Here, though, classical physics stops, we cannot describe anything past this point. Many people assume that, because they are only familiar with classical physics, that it's impossible to go beyond this point. In terms of classical physics that's true. The description above is the accepted classical "proof" of the existence of the Big Bang but we have a problem in that this is predicated on our insistence on applying general relativity beyond its natural domain. So what are the options? This has been a burning issue in physics for three decades. Many attempts have been made to solve this problem but sadly they've mostly involved fiddling the figures to make all the equations balance out. However, recent work by Martin Bojowald has shown that by applying loop quantum gravity the situation is very different. In the standard procedure (the stuff above) the reduction is classical and removes all traces of the fundamental discreteness. Bojowalds method retains the features of quantum geometry first by quantizing the kinematics of the full theory and then restricting himself to quantum states that are isotropic and homogenous. This means, among other things, that the scale factor now has discrete eigenvalues. Now it gets complicated, the full explanation is long and difficult so I'll try to summarise. There is much in this theory about what happens at the time of the singularity but a surprising result of this theory is that we can "see" past the classical singularity to the "time" before the Big Bang. In mathematical jargon we can say that using the Thiemann regularisation we can evolve in the past through n=0, (n=0 being the Big Bang singularity). this being so we can ask what this state does at negative times, i.e., before the big-bang. (Time becomes negative because triads flip orientation on the ‘other side’.) It seems the state does not become pre-classical there. If this is borne out by detailed calculations, then the ‘big-bang’ separates two regimes; on ‘our’ side, classical geometry is both meaningful and useful at late times while on the ‘other’ side, it is not. This, of course, doesn't actually answer the question of exactly what happened before the big bang, any more than religious apologists can answer the question of who made God. It does however show that scientific research into the subject is progressing, that theories are being devised and tested, that new discoveries are constantly being made. Unfortunately, because of the level of mathematical knowledge required to keep up with this research, many people are unaware of it and, of those, many who are otherwise intelligent and enquiring will fall back on the unproved and untested "God" hypothesis because, at an uncritical level, it seems to provide the answers they want. If you abandon science because it doesn't provide all the answers then you've failed to understand what science is. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that if we don't know something we should do the fine and noble thing and confess that we don't know but hope that someday these questions can be answered without recourse to magic or superstition.

Fuck it I'm just going to believe in god instead of reading all that

**DrB0b** · 23-02-2007, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by mrsquirrel

Fuck it I'm just going to believe in god instead of reading all that

Hmm, it looked a lot better on my screen, maybe I shouldn't use linux for
writing posts

Anyway, your reply neatly sums up the real reason why people turn
to religion

**attaboy** · 24-02-2007, 04:31 AM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by mrsquirrel

Fuck it I'm just going to believe in god instead of reading all that

Hmm, it looked a lot better on my screen, maybe I shouldn't use linux for
writing posts

Anyway, your reply neatly sums up the real reason why people turn
to religion

Greenies on the way.

**stroller** · 24-02-2007, 07:59 AM

Fascinating.

DrBob's post could be the start of a new thread in Issues, which is a little more suitable for serious topics.

**danbo** · 24-02-2007, 05:16 PM

I won't bore or befuzzle you by discussing the technical points in DrBob's post; but I will say that his closing point -

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that if we don't know something we should do the fine and noble thing and confess that we don't know but hope that someday these questions can be answered without recourse to magic or superstition

- is all fine and dandy, but leaves me a bit cold. I think that a little magic and superstition adds to life. I still feel a sense of wonder when I see an aeroplane take off. Understanding the physics and mechanics would lessen the spectacle for me. I prefer to imagine a giant invisible hand manoeuvring the plane in a similar fashion to the way that I play flying machines with the stapler at work when I'm bored.

There was program in the UK about walking on hot coals. A woman who had completed the course was interviewed. She said that the sense of achievement she felt at 'succeeding' in walking across the coals had given her strength to fight the cancer from which she was suffering. Then a little bald man with a PhD came on and explained how the 'phenomena' could be explained away by formulas of heat transference and surface area. I wanted to climb inside the television and punch him on the nose.

**Mackerel** · 24-02-2007, 05:38 PM

Maybe God was/is a physicist ... it all looks very, very interesting Dr Bob but the maths is just too much ... it certainly makes me feel like leaning towards the science of the bottle

**stroller** · 24-02-2007, 05:57 PM

I don't have a clue regarding the maths involved, but Bob's explanation is enough to grasp the principle.

This is groundbreaking news, well, I haven't heard of this before. It shows how little we understand the concepts of space and time, and assuming there to be a god who dictated a book or something does seem like a rather barbaric, simplistic comforting of ourselves by comparison.

**danbo** · 24-02-2007, 10:52 PM

All DrBob is doing is reciting recipe and method, he tells us nothing about the sensation of taste or who had the inclination to make the cake in the first place.

**Eliminator** · 24-02-2007, 11:13 PM

If MrSQ is goin to Libya to work, it would be bette if he was muslim.

**stroller** · 25-02-2007, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by danbo

All DrBob is doing is reciting recipe and method, he tells us nothing about the sensation of taste or who had the inclination to make the cake in the first place.

I wouldn't expect to be spoonfed everything, would you?

**danbo** · 25-02-2007, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by stroller

I don't have a clue regarding the maths involved, but Bob's explanation is enough to grasp the principle.

The Bible uses allegory and parable to achieve the same result.

**Wally Dorian Raffles** · 25-02-2007, 08:07 PM

jesus was a politition,...of sorts...
and the bible .. nothing but a story book.

**keda** · 26-02-2007, 09:41 AM

Good storyline; could do with a rewrite.

**DrB0b** · 26-02-2007, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by danbo

I think that a little magic and superstition adds to life. I still feel a sense of wonder when I see an aeroplane take off. Understanding the physics and mechanics would lessen the spectacle for me. I prefer to imagine a giant invisible hand manoeuvring the plane in a similar fashion to the way that I play flying machines with the stapler at work when I'm bored.

Danbo, I agree with you totally. Life would be a lot poorer without magic
and superstition, I love mythology, ritual, and cermonial and I'm
fascinated by the ways people deal with the numinous. I've been
studying Thai magical practices and in the next few weeks I plan to
start a thread on Ya Sang recipes and amulet manufacture, this time
I'll leave out the maths

The reason my post was so technical/cold was because the OP was talking
about questions his students had asked. As they were science questions
I believe that they should be answered using the methods of science,
though preferably by somebody a bit better at metaphor and allegory
than me.

For me some of the ideas I've learned from science are utterly magical,
like for instance the thought that every time I move I'm moving through
an infinite number of tiny, closed off, 11 dimensional spaces, or
that me, you, and everything else around us is composed of elements
created either at the time of the Big Bang or in the furnaces at the hearts
of long extinct stars.

It's possible to get the magic and wonder of science across to people
effectively, quite a few popular science books do it very well. The one that
did it for me was called "The Quark and the Jaguar" by Murray Gell-Mann.
I'd recommend it to anybody interested in quantum physics and its
derivatives.

**ENT** · 03-03-2007, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by danbo

I think that a little magic and superstition adds to life. I still feel a sense of wonder when I see an aeroplane take off. Understanding the physics and mechanics would lessen the spectacle for me. I prefer to imagine a giant invisible hand manoeuvring the plane in a similar fashion to the way that I play flying machines with the stapler at work when I'm bored.

Danbo, I agree with you totally. Life would be a lot poorer without magic
and superstition, I love mythology, ritual, and cermonial and I'm
fascinated by the ways people deal with the numinous. I've been
studying Thai magical practices and in the next few weeks I plan to
start a thread on Ya Sang recipes and amulet manufacture, this time
I'll leave out the maths

You have given a very rational and understandable explanation to me, without denying god or science.

I have studied mineralogy and biology in conjunction and am also fascinated by the physical manifestation of their confluence.

The proof of the "what" of all that there is, is tantalizingly in place in scientific observation.

Oh, to be able to clearly describe that which we see!

I green you, mate, thanks for your input, lucid and sensible, unemotional and human.

The reason my post was so technical/cold was because the OP was talking
about questions his students had asked. As they were science questions
I believe that they should be answered using the methods of science,
though preferably by somebody a bit better at metaphor and allegory
than me.

For me some of the ideas I've learned from science are utterly magical,
like for instance the thought that every time I move I'm moving through
an infinite number of tiny, closed off, 11 dimensional spaces, or
that me, you, and everything else around us is composed of elements
created either at the time of the Big Bang or in the furnaces at the hearts
of long extinct stars.

It's possible to get the magic and wonder of science across to people
effectively, quite a few popular science books do it very well. The one that
did it for me was called "The Quark and the Jaguar" by Murray Gell-Mann.
I'd recommend it to anybody interested in quantum physics and its
derivatives.

Thread: I'm considerning accepting religion

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions