Message boards :
SETI@home Science :
Is Anyone Out There?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 6 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Julie Send message Joined: 28 Oct 09 Posts: 34060 Credit: 18,883,157 RAC: 18 |
Or, better. And they are! One thing though=> There is no such thing as a coincidence. Einstein said it himself, God does not play dice. rOZZ Music Pictures |
KLiK Send message Joined: 31 Mar 14 Posts: 1304 Credit: 22,994,597 RAC: 60 |
Or, better. quote: "So God does play dice with the universe. All the evidence points to him being an inveterate gambler, who throws the dice on every possible occasion." prof. S. Hawking non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU |
Darth Beaver Send message Joined: 20 Aug 99 Posts: 6728 Credit: 21,443,075 RAC: 3 |
We do not know whether there is a god or not, neither do we know whether he or she is playing dice. I think your right there Chris . Why would God NOT play dice , he would be a unhappy god if he never played games , so maybe we are the biggest game there is . If he does play games then we mite also be the biggest joke there is tooooooo. Just like the ending of MIBlack at the end when the alein rolls the marble but it not just a marble but a Universe so he mite not play dice but how about marbles ? Just because Einstein said it don't mean it's true . |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30900 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
"God is not supposed to be playing with dices", Albert Einstein. God is the dice! |
Julie Send message Joined: 28 Oct 09 Posts: 34060 Credit: 18,883,157 RAC: 18 |
"God is not supposed to be playing with dices", Albert Einstein. :) Innit.. @Chris: In an empirical point of view, we don't know whether God exists, that is true but I must add to that I still put my faith in Einsteins words as he was one of the Big Brains in this world, a bassic thinker as well. rOZZ Music Pictures |
KLiK Send message Joined: 31 Mar 14 Posts: 1304 Credit: 22,994,597 RAC: 60 |
"God is not supposed to be playing with dices", Albert Einstein. Nope...a proof of God is that he plays dices! For those of you, who like only math... As I've stated earlier...prof. S.Hawking proved that God is a gambler! ;) non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU |
tullio Send message Joined: 9 Apr 04 Posts: 8797 Credit: 2,930,782 RAC: 1 |
God cast the die, not the dice (Banesh Hoffman and Helen Dukas, former Einstein secretary, "Albert Einstein creator and rebel"). Tuillio |
tullio Send message Joined: 9 Apr 04 Posts: 8797 Credit: 2,930,782 RAC: 1 |
Italian physicist Carlo Rovelli, who works in Nice, says that Einstein was also able to recognize his mistakes, and he himself called the Cosmological constant "my biggest blunder". But this idea is now called dark energy. Tullio |
Julie Send message Joined: 28 Oct 09 Posts: 34060 Credit: 18,883,157 RAC: 18 |
@Julie - Einstein was ahead of the game in his time, that is universally agreed, But also he was not unnaturally constrained somewhat by the scientific knowlege of his time i.e. the early 1900's. The question is if he were alive today with modern knowledge available, would he change his theories? What about Plato, or Marcus Aurelius or Copernicus for that matter? I don't think so. The more we evolve, the more rubbish that gets entangled in the bassic ideas, by people who think they know better. Our collective consciousness is polluted with that rubbish. A lot of knowledge is available, that's a fact. If we humans are doing the right thing with that knowledge, is another matter. rOZZ Music Pictures |
bluestar Send message Joined: 5 Sep 12 Posts: 7230 Credit: 2,084,789 RAC: 3 |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant Have a look here for more of the same. Scientists are not supposed to be religious believers, but nature may be having an intelligence behind its creation. Supposedly coincidence is not a proper explanation for everything, because most things are supposed to be predicted in advance and generally being understood. You know, Albert Einstein was never fond about Quantum Theory. He did not like the principle at all and despite being both a mathematician as well as physicist, rather kept to the subject of special and general theories of relativity. Modern physics, including Quantum Physics is supposed to be a continuation of the work being carried out by Albert Einstein. The finding of certain particles by nuclear physicists helps prove certain facts regarding our current understanding of the inner workings of nature. For now ordinary people becomes lost, because the mathematics behind Quantum Theory is too difficult to comprehend, even to those having some knowledge in the subject of mathematics. |
William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 3756 Credit: 1,999,735 RAC: 4 |
Einstein was not the best of Mathematicians when compared with the list of the top 25 or so. He needed help from Hilbert, Riemann and his pal Grossman. His early work followed on from Lorentz. His work was expressed in Math but it was not math of his creation--the results and his insight into the implications of those results were his great genius. Probably one of the best minds ever--not so much in terms of IQ or Math but very stubborn in squeezing out the facts from nature and in understanding what the Math told him. The "God" that Einstein and Hawking have mentioned is not your god who is vengeful, indifferent to suffering, keeps a tally on your misdeeds and listens to your supplications. It is the intricacies, intelligence, chance and mysteries that they perceive in Nature, |
bluestar Send message Joined: 5 Sep 12 Posts: 7230 Credit: 2,084,789 RAC: 3 |
Another posting became slightly long, so I will make this a short one. Definitely music in its general terms are not the same as hallucinations sometimes being experienced under the influence of drugs or narcotics. Albert Einstein never was a musician. Still he is thought of as being a genius because of his specific way of approaching very difficult subject fields. Meaning that your deductive or analytical skills well should be associated with your ability of thinking, but not necessarily about dreaming and wishful thoughts, at least not all the time. Your possible analytical or deductive skills is a result of both the capabilities of your right part brain as well as the little brain. It becomes part of a wider power which makes it quite clear what the capacities of the human brain may at times be able to have. Dedication and talent is supposed to be represented by those interests you may be having. Remember Albert Einstein started up his career as working for the local patent office before settling down on his own course towards fame. He became famous because he was able to produce the Special and General Laws of Relativity. Most likely he was having dreams while sleeping, but it probably never was his dreams which lead to his conclusions. His work is now being followed up and currently the Quantum Theory is the successor to the Theories of Relativity, even though these two subject fields are of course not directly related. |
Julie Send message Joined: 28 Oct 09 Posts: 34060 Credit: 18,883,157 RAC: 18 |
|
KLiK Send message Joined: 31 Mar 14 Posts: 1304 Credit: 22,994,597 RAC: 60 |
@Julie - Einstein was ahead of the game in his time, that is universally agreed, But also he was not unnaturally constrained somewhat by the scientific knowlege of his time i.e. the early 1900's. The question is if he were alive today with modern knowledge available, would he change his theories? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S3uAgyNyrs ;) non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU |
William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 3756 Credit: 1,999,735 RAC: 4 |
But careful here, else we'll get back to creationism Vs Evolutionism :-) Yes that's right . That was exactly running through my mind as I composed my reply. It's easy to see that the intricacies of Nature inspire thoughts of some grand designer. Nature is that clever in allowing random events over eons of time to create an unfathomable structure and complexity. |
bluestar Send message Joined: 5 Sep 12 Posts: 7230 Credit: 2,084,789 RAC: 3 |
I choose to make this post right here. Definitely the contents of many threads here goes for the same. Are you supposed to be making both pros as well as cons when it comes to given subjects? Are there possibly different approaches to the same thing, at least when it comes to our current understanding and are different ways of reaching specific conclusions perhaps able to better solve a given problem, excluding one possibility for another and possibly giving room for new ideas as well? Apparently it passed by me as I was reading through the threads, but perhaps you may at times give a thought about the principle of life vs what we may think of as being the divine and possibly eternity. If you happen to be the good man, you are supposed to end up in heaven. If not, you are supposed to end up in "hell". So, if you perhaps did not chose to make up your own mind, what is supposed to be the better option? Is heaven supposed to be better than something else regardless of your personal attitude when it comes to "belief"? |
Lynn Send message Joined: 20 Nov 00 Posts: 14162 Credit: 79,603,650 RAC: 123 |
Let's no get into Intelligent design here. Is Anyone Out There? Jury still out on ET. |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11406 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
Let's no get into Intelligent design here. We already had one and he left. |
bluestar Send message Joined: 5 Sep 12 Posts: 7230 Credit: 2,084,789 RAC: 3 |
Oh, is perhaps Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein perhaps better to explain whether or not we are alone in the universe? Which approach is perhaps the better one, listening in to the stars, or maybe paint a picture which may be interpreted as being something? Definitely a painter is not able to tell whether or not we are the only one, but we happen to know about the distances between the stars. Still, there may be times where events may happen at other places but still able to reach home. The celestial sky may be a magnificent view when being watched through a telescope, still our knowledge comes mostly from photographic exposures, including long-duration such in order to collect light from distant objects. Still, we may return to our books and working desk in order to get everything into order. The efforts of individuals may become unproven until being verified by others, often including better tools which may be at hand. Still, some of our knowledge may come from great ideas which at times may be put through. Maybe people should not only ask themselves about given proofs all the time, but rather give time at giving such ideas a little thought instead. So, because I may not perhaps be to clear about this all the time, should we better trust Betty and Barney Hill when it comes to a possible close encounter experience, or should we rather believe in the WOW signal instead? Ask a believer in UFO's and he or she will be ready to tell that we definitely are not alone in space. |
Gordon Lowe Send message Joined: 5 Nov 00 Posts: 12094 Credit: 6,317,865 RAC: 0 |
So, because I may not perhaps be to clear about this all the time, should we better trust Betty and Barney Hill when it comes to a possible close encounter experience, or should we rather believe in the WOW signal instead? That's a very good question. The mind is a weird and mysterious place |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.