Being A Christian

[oaksoft]

You never come across Boltzmann Brains then?

I think there are two main issues at the heart of generally accepted evolutionary theory, and i include cosmological evolution in this

1. what would appear to be the fine tuning of the universe for life and the scientific run in the direction of a impossibly provable M theory/ multiverse which because of the lack of a causal link could not be proved from this universe, thus is certainly science reaching for the faith bucket

2. the complexity problem (though Boltzmann noted above had some thoughts on this) we appear to see the universe tending to equilibrium (2nd law of thermodynamics etc) we see this everywhere, in the universe at large as it expands and cools to the cup of hot coffee on your desk that also gets cold....everywhere except in biological evolution where if you leave the "building blocks" stuff gets more complex, this has yet to be completely explained, and in an Occams Razor type way as science progresses it is starting to look at lot more like faith on a macro level so maybe faith would be the simplest solution

In fairness I have never heard anyone describe the 2nd law of Thermodynamics in terms of equilibrium.

The second law of Thermodynamics talks about the inevitable increase of entropy.

That is an inevitable move towards more disorder and chaos.

That means more complexity not less.

The cup of coffee gets cold because the heat which was concentrated in just one area is now dissipated across a wider area - again with an associated increase in disorder and complexity not less.

In your comment about equilibrium you mention two examples but both are related to temperature equilibrium.

It sounds to me like you are confusing equilibrium and entropy but this isn't my area of expertise.

Edited April 18, 2016 by oaksoft

[rea]

In fairness I have never heard anyone describe the 2nd law of Thermodynamics in terms of equilibrium.

The second law of Thermodynamics is about the inevitable increase of entropy.

That is an inevitable move towards more disorder and chaos.

That means more complexity not less.

ok exactly where did you study thermodynamics?

Myself at University and it is all about equilibrium

In Physics more "disorder" as you call it results in less complexity as the disorder as such is the break down of everything to a constituent level e.g heat death, which means everything we know that is complex eg the pc in front of you eventually eventually ends up in its least complex heat death state.

so to put it simply you are wrong, about the disorder = complexity, it is exactly the reverse, from a physics point of view

Edited April 18, 2016 by rea

[oaksoft]

ok exactly where did you study thermodynamics?

Myself at University and it is all about equilibrium

In Physics more "disorder" as you call it results in less complexity as the disorder as such is the break down of everything to a constituent level e.g heat death, which means everything we know that is complex eg the pc in front of you eventually eventually ends up in its least complex heat death state.

so to put it simply you are wrong, about the disorder = complexity, it is exactly the reverse, from a physics point of view

At university too but not as part of a Physics degree.

In fairness I did say it wasn't my field of expertise.

You are aware I'm sure that thermodynamics is not just about heat right?

It used to be considered as such which is why the terms used are historically.

But it certainly isn't considered to be just about heat now.

I'm not sure I would necessarily accept that the view of disorder without a debate.

For example, localisation effects are certainly simpler to deal with than non-local effects.

Mathematically the latter gives rise to more complicated solutions. I can personally testify to that because I'm looking at some monstrous maths research papers right now.

The PC you talk about is considerably simpler to build out of the box than having to build it directly from the individual parts which make it up.

Take a chemical substance such as salt in solid form. Relatively easy to characterise and understand.

Now put it in solution and try to describe what is going on from a chemical point of view - impossible to be certain right?

The rise of Asda is a classic example of where it is certainly easier having everything under one roof. Remove Asda and have your good scattered across 10 shops and your life is considerably more complex.

I'd also suggest that if you had a cage full of birds and a train to catch that this would be considerably more difficult if the door was open and your pigeons were scattered all over the town.

Of course I'm being facetious with that last comment but only to illustrate that complexity can depend on context - all of the above is essentially a form of entropy. The physics point of view is certainly noteworthy but it clearly isn't the only one.

If that doesn't strike a chord then perhaps you could try explaining how residual entropy of CO molecules at 0K fits in with a theory about equilibrium. TBH I actually don't know have a good answer to this myself but if you do know I'd be happy to hear it.

Final point, I will think more about your comment on "heat death". I'm not sure this is right either. It seems too overly simplistic for my liking. I'm particularly thinking about isothermal processes.

Edited April 18, 2016 by oaksoft

[rea]

At university too but not as part of a Physics degree.

In fairness I did say it wasn't my field of expertise.

You are aware I'm sure that thermodynamics is not just about heat right?

indeed, but the end point of a rise in entropy on a cosmological scale is known as heat Death, and it is that to which Boltzmann Brain and my 2 point issue with generally accepted evolutionary theory was directed

It used to be considered as such which is why the terms used are historically.

But it certainly isn't considered to be just about heat now.

I'm not sure I would necessarily accept that the view of disorder without a debate.

I assume you mean the view that in physics an increase in Entropy (which is perhaps unhelpfully known more simply as an increase is disorder, much like your heat point above) represents an increase is disorder which is a simpler state

For example, localisation effects are certainly simpler to deal with than non-local effects.

Indeed the 2nd law applies to a closed system which in this case i am refering to the whole universe, but in smaller closed systems you of course get more complex local effects even when entropy is increasing through out the system, see Boltzmann above

Mathematically the latter gives rise to more complicated solutions.

This is the issue with Maths it can only deal with timeless systems and the problem with the universe is it exists in time, see Lee Smolin and Unger

http://leesmolin.com/writings/the-singular-universe-and-the-reality-of-time/

for a better appreciation of how maths should IMHO be treated

I can personally testify to that because I'm looking at some monstrous maths research papers right now.

Good luck

The PC you talk about is considerably simpler to build out of the box than having to build it directly from the individual parts which make it up.

Take a chemical substance such as salt in solid form. Relatively easy to characterise and understand.

Now put it in solution and try to describe what is going on from a chemical point of view - impossible to be certain right?

This is a quantum mechanics problem e.g probability but we know from 2nd law that eventually it will reach and equilibrium state where (negating the boltzmann stuff) the salt will be equally present throughout the solution, and that is is in physics terms a higher entropy and less complex situation that a lump of salt and a tub of water

The rise of Asda is a classic example of where it is certainly easier having everything under one roof. Remove Asda and have your good scattered across 10 shops and your life is considerably more complex.

I'd also suggest that if you had a cage full of birds and a train to catch that this would be considerably more difficult if the door was open and your pigeons were scattered all over the town.

Of course I'm being facetious with that last comment but only to illustrate that complexity can depend on context - all of the above is essentially a form of entropy. The physics point of view is certainly noteworthy but it clearly isn't the only one.

The thing with the above two examples which are actually quite good is that they are fundamentally biological (there is a biological mover or causal connection/operator) systems which as noted before seem to display a direct contradiction to the 2nd law, hence my original point

If that doesn't strike a chord then perhaps you could try explaining how residual entropy of CO molecules at 0K fits in with a theory about equilibrium.

Do you mean residual Entropy or residual Enthalpy at 0K?

[Seaside Nipper]

I am an atheist. That is my choice.

Christians, I know many and one or two like to mention it, talk about it, profess it at every opportunity. They are untrustworthy moron's who as well as being incredibly gullible are also quite frankly stupid. I do not trust people who are overtly religious.

Many other people I know are also Christian's. They are good honest people who quietly attend church every week, some help at coffee morning's, some help arrange trips for pensioner's and some just quietly go about there business without mentioning religion unless directly asked. Good honest people.

I particuarly distrust anyone who professes to be a born again Christian. These people often hide behind religion in order to hide some repugnent behaviour in there past. As a lad I was taught that the presbyterian church was the best church in the world and as I grew older (and wiser) i rejected this as a lot of pish. However If I choose to return to my Church of Scotland roots I can and would do so in a quiet and dignified manner. Why would I refer to myself as born again? Why would I ram it down other peoples throats? Why would I bother people by chapping there front doors and telling them about it?

People who conduct themselves in such a way are an insult to our education system and deserve to have faeces thrown at them in the street.

PS Do you really believe that every animal in the world paired up and trotted/flew/slithered/walked etc onto Noah's ark?

Do you really believe that Jesus's maw Mary was a virgin?

Do you really believe that Mary's husband Joseph wasn't pumping her?

Do you really believe in the shitty story about the garden of eden?

Do you really believe that Jesus rose from the dead but looked entirely different?

A man called Charles Darwin proved the bible and all other religious texts to be utter shite.

That is my opinion of course and you are free to believe whatever you wish (rubbish or not), just dont come to my front door and tell me about it!

I'm with you there......

I used to be a bit unsure about all the ethereal spirit machinations and the truth about the big story handed down, but now, its clear, well, I simply thank God I'm an atheist

[rea]

It would be silly to argue about Boltzmann Brains since, in a Boltzmann Brain universe, no argument is reliable.

how do you figure that, while mind blowingly weird the Boltzmann idea holds water, not sure it says anything about "no argument being reliable"...but happy to learn if you can show me

There is no fine tuning of the universe for life. Most of the universe would be unsuitable for life as we know it. I appreciate it may be hard for some people to accept, but we are here by mere chance. For example, life on earth could arise because we are in the so-called Goldilocks Zone, rather than the earth being in the Goldilocks Zone so that life can arise.

I dont think many scientists do not think the universe is fine tuned for life, ( see Martin Rees {astronomer royal} and his six constants,) what they dispute is the why or how.

in order to deal with the problem many scientists are going down the multiverse route, e.g every type of universe that can exist does, it is just that the one we are in has us in it, a completely unprovable and circular reasoning, rather than dealing with the issue that we appear to have a singular universe whose physical constants are primed for something rather than nothing

Biological evolution is a very small part of the universe, just because things are tending to equilibrium over the whole does not mean that there are not some "pockets of stuff" (whether that be biological evolution or something else) that is not "bucking the trend". It's like that the stock market crashing and assuming that share price for every single company dropped. Something usually "bucks the trend" in all matters. It doesn't mean that it won't eventually follow the rest.

This is exactly what Boltzmann Brains is all about, the stochastic fluctuations on he level of entropy, which supposes that small fluctuations will be common, with a small amount of organisation all the way up to large fluctuations being incredibly rare but still possible due to the shear size of the universe......we appear to be living in one of these highly unlikely low entropy areas, and so the question is why? is it just physics, statistics and geometry or is it something outside of all of this....

....in a modern day mix of Pascals wager and Occams Razor, is it simpler to say that a "God" (however you want to take that) had a hand in it, or that it is just statistics a statistic by the way that has more zeros on the end that particles in the known universe......although to be fair scientists now cannot find 94% of the universe

[oaksoft]

The PC you talk about is considerably simpler to build out of the box than having to build it directly from the individual parts which make it up.

Take a chemical substance such as salt in solid form. Relatively easy to characterise and understand.

Now put it in solution and try to describe what is going on from a chemical point of view - impossible to be certain right?

This is a quantum mechanics problem e.g probability but we know from 2nd law that eventually it will reach and equilibrium state where (negating the boltzmann stuff) the salt will be equally present throughout the solution, and that is is in physics terms a higher entropy and less complex situation that a lump of salt and a tub of water

The rise of Asda is a classic example of where it is certainly easier having everything under one roof. Remove Asda and have your good scattered across 10 shops and your life is considerably more complex.

I'd also suggest that if you had a cage full of birds and a train to catch that this would be considerably more difficult if the door was open and your pigeons were scattered all over the town.

Of course I'm being facetious with that last comment but only to illustrate that complexity can depend on context - all of the above is essentially a form of entropy. The physics point of view is certainly noteworthy but it clearly isn't the only one.

The thing with the above two examples which are actually quite good is that they are fundamentally biological (there is a biological mover or causal connection/operator) systems which as noted before seem to display a direct contradiction to the 2nd law, hence my original point

If that doesn't strike a chord then perhaps you could try explaining how residual entropy of CO molecules at 0K fits in with a theory about equilibrium.

Do you mean residual Entropy or residual Enthalpy at 0K?

The "whole universe" is a thermodynamically isolated system not a closed system.

Earth could be considered a closed system.

The examples of Asda and the pigeons works because it requires less work to be done on the system.

I'm not sure why you think this is a violation of the 2nd law.

I meant the residual entropy of CO at 0K.

Edited April 18, 2016 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

There is no fine tuning of the universe for life. Most of the universe would be unsuitable for life as we know it. I appreciate it may be hard for some people to accept, but we are here by mere chance. For example, life on earth could arise because we are in the so-called Goldilocks Zone, rather than the earth being in the Goldilocks Zone so that life can arise.

I dont think many scientists do not think the universe is fine tuned for life, ( see Martin Rees {astronomer royal} and his six constants,) what they dispute is the why or how.

I think you are over-interpreting the words of scientists here.

This is the problem scientists have. To explain to an untrained audience they need to use metaphors and simplifications.

Then their words get pounced on by those who wish to twist their views to suit their own arguments.

Christians have serious form over this and you have quoted a classic example of it.

These scientists are not seriously suggesting that somehow the Earth and its surroundings have been specifically designed or "fine-tuned" somehow to support life. They have no basis on which to make such an assertion.

That is a dumbed down presentation for a non-scientific audience.

It's an unfortunate phrase but those of us involved in science know how hard it is to communicate our jobs to people without making political mistakes like that.

They are saying that for reasons as yet unknown, a series of events has led to the situation where the building blocks of life, which slarti mentioned above, can move on to form life.

Science has shown that these basic blocks do not need a "God" to explain their presence - they can be synthesised in a beaker using nothing more than would have likely been available at the start of life on earth. This is a tremendously important success for science in explaining where we have come from.

The second these scientists find the catalyst which allows those building blocks to form life, the idea of a God is simply redundant. Of course they may fail to do so but IMO they will almost certainly succeed at some point.

Edited April 18, 2016 by oaksoft

[rea]

The "whole universe" is a thermodynamically isolated system not a closed system.

That is exactly my point 2nd law applies in a closed system, the only actual "real" closed system is the whole universe, any other "closed" system that the 2nd law is applied to is a mathematical construct

Earth could be considered a closed system.

It could be considered this mathematically, but in reality it does not exist as a closed system

The examples of Asda and the pigeons works because it requires less work to be done on the system.

I'm not sure why you think this is a violation of the 2nd law.

dont think i said it is in violation as work is being done to the system to organise it, you have to consider the whole picture

I meant the residual entropy of CO at 0K.

Well as 0K is only a logically deduced temp rather than a temp you can actually cool a perfect crystal too in order to test the entropy at it, but the assumption if i recall is that even though entropy is zero (in theory) the zero point energy remains as part of the quantum corrective term of Plank, and this kenetic energy remains which means that entropy is no zero at 0k...all theory of course as no one can actually test it

[rea]

I think you are over-interpreting the words of scientists here.

This is the problem scientists have. To explain to an untrained audience they need to use metaphors and simplifications.

Then their words get pounced on by those who wish to twist their views to suit their own arguments.

Christians have serious form over this and you have quoted a classic example of it.

These scientists are not seriously suggesting that somehow the Earth and its surroundings have been specifically designed or "fine-tuned" somehow to support life. They have no basis on which to make such an assertion.

Firstly some of them are, but mainly if you take the meaning i meant from my words, i meant "fine tuning" in a non pejorative way, virtually all (except possibly Ultra multiverse physicists) see that this universe is "fine tuned" because it does indeed support something over nothing (much more basic that life or no life)

That is a dumbed down presentation for a non-scientific audience.

It's an unfortunate phrase but those of us involved in science know how hard it is to communicate our jobs to people without making political mistakes like that.

what area of science are you involved in?

They are saying that for reasons as yet unknown, a series of events has led to the situation where the building blocks of life, which slarti mentioned above, can move on to form life.

Science has shown that these basic blocks do not need a "God" to explain their presence - they can be synthesised in a beaker using nothing more than would have likely been available at the start of life on earth. This is a tremendously important success for science in explaining where we have come from.

the key here is "for reasons as yet unknown" Science cannot yet and may never be able to actually take the inanimate and make it animate

The second these scientists find the catalyst which allows those building blocks to form life, the idea of a God is simply redundant. Of course they may fail to do so but IMO they will almost certainly succeed at some point.

i admire your "FAITH" that science will succeed at some point it equals my "FAITH" that God is at the center of all of this......incedentally i am not even sure science making single cellular life would actually mean very much at all in either direction in this debate....i think both our "faiths" will remain well intact

[pozbaird]

Boltzmann Brains. Knew his brother, Shitfurr. Played for Borrussia Dortmund in the 1970s.

[faraway saint]

Can I be a Christian if I work in Saudi or will they stone me to death?

Just asking.

[pozbaird]

I don't know if I am an atheist or not. I don't go to church, I don't believe in a bloke who turned water into Pinot Grigio, and I don't believe that a guy in white robes looking like Mike Rutherford fae' Genesis circa' 1976 meets you at any sort of gates, Pearly or otherwise.

However, and I mean this sincerely, I do believe that having been created by two adults shagging, I have my time on this earth and there IS something afterwards for you. I don't believe you just go back to a situation that existed before you came into being. To this end, I absolutely believe that for cnuts like Jimmy Savile or Ian Huntley, whatever lies ahead cannot be very nice. I honestly try to live my life without being cruel or unkind, or worse, to my fellow humans and animals. I do my very best to be honest and not to hurt anyone. I hope that whatever world may lie ahead, it will then be better than Jimmy Savile's.

I base this theory on a few things I have read about down the years. One thing is the stories I heard about people who were drowning. They were desperate, thrashing around in panic, but when their lungs filled and they were going down for the third time - they suddenly felt at complete peace and had never been more calm... Then someone grabbed them out the water, administered first-aid, and pumped the water from their lungs, basically they had a near-death experience but were saved on the brink.

It is this reporting of complete calm and a sense of peace from a most dramatic and frightening situation that makes me believe that the calmness and peace is something you pass into.

What that makes me is anyone's guess. First person who answers 'a daft cnut' gets a slap.

Edited April 18, 2016 by pozbaird

[rea]

I don't know if I am an atheist or not. I don't go to church, I don't believe in a bloke who turned water into Pinot Grigio, and I don't believe that a guy in white robes looking like Mike Rutherford fae' Genesis circa' 1976 meets you at any sort of gates, Pearly or otherwise.

However, and I mean this sincerely, I do believe that having been created by two adults shagging, I have my time on this earth and there IS something afterwards for you. I don't believe you just go back to a situation that existed before you came into being. To this end, I absolutely believe that for cnuts like Jimmy Savile or Ian Huntley, whatever lies ahead cannot be very nice. I honestly try to live my life without being cruel or unkind, or worse, to my fellow humans and animals. I do my very best to be honest and not to hurt anyone. I hope that whatever world may lie ahead, it will then be better than Jimmy Savile's.

I base this theory on a few things I have read about down the years. One thing is the stories I heard about people who were drowning. They were desperate, thrashing around in panic, butvwhen their lungs filled and they were going down for the third time - they suddenly felt at complete peace and had never been more calm... Then someone grabbed them out the water, administered first-aid, and pumped the water from their lungs, basically they had a near-death experience but were saved on the brink.

It is this reporting of complete calm and a sense of peace from a most dramatic and frightening situation that makes me believe that the calmness and peace is something you pass into.

What that makes me is anyone's guess. First person who answers 'a daft cnut' gets a slap.

you want to have a look at a thing called Pasals wager......though not on the William Hill website.

what i believe you would call what you many people experience is a thing termed the "idea of the numinuous" coined by a guy called Rudolph Otto....who never played for Dortmund.

There are three components to this which you can read about or not.....the key thing is what you chose to do with this insight....and thats us back to Pascals wager

[pozbaird]

you want to have a look at a thing called Pasals wager......though not on the William Hill website.

what i believe you would call what you many people experience is a thing termed the "idea of the numinuous" coined by a guy called Rudolph Otto....who never played for Dortmund.

There are three components to this which you can read about or not.....the key thing is what you chose to do with this insight....and thats us back to Pascals wager

Well, looking on the bright side - once you die, if it is simply a case of being like it was before you even existed and there's 'nothing', why worry? The world cracked on for zillions of years before I popped out in Paisley in 1961, and will maybe just go on again without me?

Fair do's. I'm perfectly at peace with the thought of dying. Cannae' do a helluva' lot about it eventually happening, so I embrace the idea of that 'peace and calm' coming my way one day. Nearly came at the end of the Hammarby game, but that's another story.

[rea]

Well, looking on the bright side - once you die, if it is simply a case of being like it was before you even existed and there's 'nothing', why worry? The world cracked on for zillions of years before I popped out in Paisley in 1961, and will maybe just go on again without me?

Fair do's. I'm perfectly at peace with the thought of dying. Cannae' do a helluva' lot about it eventually happening, so I embrace the idea of that 'peace and calm' coming my way one day. Nearly came at the end of the Hammarby game, but that's another story.

well always keep an open mind, and listen to your dreams, overcoming inertia is mans greatest weakness IMHO

[pozbaird]

well always keep an open mind, and listen to your dreams, overcoming inertia is mans greatest weakness IMHO

My dreams currently involve Countdown's Rachel Riley in a St Mirren shirt as the SMiSA clock ticks past 1000.

[pozbaird]

you want to have a look at a thing called Pasals wager......though not on the William Hill website.

what i believe you would call what you many people experience is a thing termed the "idea of the numinuous" coined by a guy called Rudolph Otto....who never played for Dortmund.

There are three components to this which you can read about or not.....the key thing is what you chose to do with this insight....and thats us back to Pascals wager

Had a read at some Pascal's Wager stuff. The basic premise of 'live your life as if there IS a god, a heaven and a hell' is in the same ballpark as what I believe, but I don't equate it personally in such terms as 'god', 'heaven' or 'hell'.

As I say, I am not expecting a welcome from a bearded gent at the top of a big staircase shrouded in white clouds, nor do I expect a firey inferno where you are booted in the stones 24/7 and are forced to listen to post-OK Computer Radiohead albums.

I don't know. I'll find out when it's my turn to 'do a Ronnie Corbett'.

If there's the internet available, I'll make a post about it.... Superfast fibre-optic broadband in heaven, 56k dial-up in hell.

'General heavenly nonsense' thread?

[rea]

Had a read at some Pascal's Wager stuff. The basic premise of 'live your life as if there IS a god, a heaven and a hell' is in the same ballpark as what I believe, but I don't equate it personally in such terms as 'god', 'heaven' or 'hell'.

As I say, I am not expecting a welcome from a bearded gent at the top of a big staircase shrouded in white clouds, nor do I expect a firey inferno where you are booted in the stones 24/7 and are forced to listen to post-OK Computer Radiohead albums.

I don't know. I'll find out when it's my turn to 'do a Ronnie Corbett'.

If there's the internet available, I'll make a post about it.... Superfast fibre-optic broadband in heaven, 56k dial-up in hell.

'General heavenly nonsense' thread?

i hope to read your post from this side first!

[oaksoft]

The "whole universe" is a thermodynamically isolated system not a closed system.

That is exactly my point 2nd law applies in a closed system, the only actual "real" closed system is the whole universe, any other "closed" system that the 2nd law is applied to is a mathematical construct

Earth could be considered a closed system.

It could be considered this mathematically, but in reality it does not exist as a closed system

The examples of Asda and the pigeons works because it requires less work to be done on the system.

I'm not sure why you think this is a violation of the 2nd law.

dont think i said it is in violation as work is being done to the system to organise it, you have to consider the whole picture

I meant the residual entropy of CO at 0K.

Well as 0K is only a logically deduced temp rather than a temp you can actually cool a perfect crystal too in order to test the entropy at it, but the assumption if i recall is that even though entropy is zero (in theory) the zero point energy remains as part of the quantum corrective term of Plank, and this kenetic energy remains which means that entropy is no zero at 0k...all theory of course as no one can actually test it

Zero point energy is the deviation between the energy at the bottom of the classical potential well and the energy at the lowest quantum vibrational number of an electronic state. Are you thinking of something else?

[oaksoft]

i admire your "FAITH" that science will succeed at some point it equals my "FAITH" that God is at the center of all of this......incedentally i am not even sure science making single cellular life would actually mean very much at all in either direction in this debate....i think both our "faiths" will remain well intact

We've had an interesting chat over a lot of stuff here so I won't ruin it by taking serious offence at your equating a belief in the scientific method with a belief in religion.

As for my area of science - I've sent you a PM.

[rea]

Zero point energy is the deviation between the energy at the bottom of the classical potential well and the energy at the lowest quantum vibrational number of an electronic state. Are you thinking of something else?

dont think so, the existence of a zero point energy at a theoretical 0K is why energy is still in the system and hence entropy is not zero, this kenetic energy cannot be removed by further cooling, as you cannot find a coolant that would cool as that is circular, maybe i have remembered this incorrectly, but i dont think i have, happy to be directed to an article that clarifies the science if you have access to one

[rea]

We've had an interesting chat over a lot of stuff here so I won't ruin it by taking serious offence at your equating a belief in the scientific method with a belief in religion.

As for my area of science - I've sent you a PM.

Faith is the assurance of things hoped for the conviction of things not seen....i think both of us are equally displaying this only yours is in the scientific method providing a solution mine is (as it happens) actually in both,

Edited April 18, 2016 by rea

[oaksoft]

Had a read at some Pascal's Wager stuff. The basic premise of 'live your life as if there IS a god, a heaven and a hell' is in the same ballpark as what I believe, but I don't equate it personally in such terms as 'god', 'heaven' or 'hell'.

As I say, I am not expecting a welcome from a bearded gent at the top of a big staircase shrouded in white clouds, nor do I expect a firey inferno where you are booted in the stones 24/7 and are forced to listen to post-OK Computer Radiohead albums.

I don't know. I'll find out when it's my turn to 'do a Ronnie Corbett'.

If there's the internet available, I'll make a post about it.... Superfast fibre-optic broadband in heaven, 56k dial-up in hell.

'General heavenly nonsense' thread?

As a scientist I would certainly like to find out the answer to all this stuff when I die.

That however would probably require a God of some kind.

Which means that either I will die and frustratingly not get any final answer (which offends my inner Einstein) OR I will have to accept that REA and the others are correct in which case I'll be embarrassed. That sounds like a lose-lose to me TBH.

[oaksoft]

dont think so, the existence of a zero point energy at a theoretical 0K is why energy is still in the system and hence entropy is not zero, this kenetic energy cannot be removed by further cooling, as you cannot find a coolant that would cool as that is circular, maybe i have remembered this incorrectly, but i dont think i have, happy to be directed to an article that clarifies the science if you have access to one

We might both be right.

I certainly am right in terms of potential energy wells but I've not seen it used to describe residual energy at 0K (I'm not a physicist though).