I have no intention of offending anyone on this forum and only wish to wonder and discuss ideas, hopefully for the benifit of us all.

Is there anyone in this forum who doesn't have faith in the future of religion and wonders if someday the world will pursue more realistic and sensible ways to base their society on certain values and morals? Our religious ideas seem to pull each individual community in the world farther apart, and those ideas are doubted and questioned more and more as we hone our ability to make intelligent observations through science. However, religion can have wisdom where science does not, and science can have intelligence and sensibility where religion does not.

It is doubtful in many minds of humanity that "world peace" will ever exist. Too many conflicting beliefs across the world would make it difficult to get the world to throw away tradition and work towards a new future that relies on science. Perhaps a combination of the old beliefs and the new beliefs is the answer?

What do you think? Does any of this make sense to anyone else out there? Where does humanity's future truly lie until we realize we must combine our forces as a species? Regardless of anything else we believe, we must unite and work together to satisfy our thirst to fulfill a desire we perceive to be "happiness."

I agree with Trance - you seem to believe that religion/cultural tradition is the problem.

Posted By: The Inquisitor

Our religious ideas seem to pull each individual community in the world farther apart

While religious barriers do distinguish us from one another, if you are educated in the holy scripture of the world's main religions, you know that there is NO religion that says to kill those not of one's own religion. The only time this occurs is when the religion is being perverted to the needs of those with power.

The clearest example of this is when the Koran says not to "harm people of the book." Essentially, it's the people worshiping rocks and trees that need worried about, not Christians and Jews. Unfortunately, the message is often twisted, and extremists are formed, which are dangerous regardless of their religion.

Posted By: The Inquisitor

It is doubtful in many minds of humanity that "world peace" will ever exist. Too many conflicting beliefs across the world would make it difficult to get the world to throw away tradition

I agree with you when you say that conflicting beliefs inhibit world peace, but there is hardly anything that can be done to fix this. Our conflicting beliefs, also known as culture, are an essential part of human society. Even if, somehow, people could be made to drop their beliefs, who would decide what humanity is to believe.

Posted By: The Inquisitor

those ideas are doubted and questioned more and more as we hone our ability to make intelligent observations through science.

Posted By: The Inquisitor

work towards a new future that relies on science.

You seem to like the idea of a purely scientific society, but this is virtually impossible. While science can provide us with hard fact and tell us more about the world we in which we live, it cannot answer moral and ethical problems, which pervade our society. The main purpose of religion throughout history has not been to explain what we do not know, but to set a moral standard for society, and it has generally succeeded. For all of the issues associated with religion, it is hard to argue that its overall effect has been positive.

Note: You seem interested in a religion of science, you should read Asimov's _Foundation_

Posted By: The Inquisitor

Is there anyone in this forum who doesn't have faith in the future of religion

I have no faith in the future of religion, based upon clear examination of the evidence of it's effect on our past.

Posted By: The Inquisitor

and wonders if someday the world will pursue more realistic and sensible ways to base their society on certain values and morals?

"Realistic" and "sensible" are such utterly relative words. I may find it sensible that a human life be founded in seeking peace in a simplistic surrounding while someone else may belief it is sensible to fill their life with as much "stuff" as is possible. Realistic? To me it is realistic to spend as much time enjoying my life and relaxing as possible. Others may think it is Realistic to do whatever it takes to make the most money possible. So what exactly do you mean?

In some sense, our world is incredibly "realistic" in that, many humans struggle on a day to day basis to find enough food to continue existing another day, while a small percentage (dismally small) of humans control nearly all of the cashflow and access to natural resources as well as human resources.

Posted By: The Inquisitor

Too many conflicting beliefs across the world would make it difficult to get the world to throw away tradition and work towards a new future that relies on science

It is not "tradition" that stops people from working together. It is greed. Not necessarily the greed of the many "Christian soldiers" or the "Islamic Jihadists", but the greed of those aforementioned incredibly few who control nearly all of the resources of this world. Those rich few will do or say whatever it takes to fulfill their two prime goals: increase their own wealth, limit others' wealth. There is a tertiary goal inherent among these rich few as well: disallow anyone from limiting, negating or controlling their wealth.

This is where wars start. This is where hatred begins. It is not started with the common man, but ends there. Those who control resources control media, religion and communication, which means, in effect, they control to a large degree the thoughts of a great majority of humanity. It is in the best interests of the very rich to have many, many hoards of humanity believing the following: "The rich are just like me because of (skin color/religion/geographic nationality/etc)" and "I would do my best to defend those that are just like me" as well as "Anyone who is not like me is a potential enemy".

Granted, these things are all thoughts we humans have on an individual level as well as being thoughts that typically happen on a subconscious level for the most part. However, clinical and theoretical psychologists investigating "brain washing" and what is termed "hate belief" or "insularity" in man have surmised that it is very likely that these traits were in fact instilled into very primitive men by the very first leaders that men had - tribal leaders, ancient shamanistic religious figures, etc. That is, they have a much more sociological source than a genetic or physical source, although both factors are inherent.

Posted By: cmseagle

I think Trance was closer to the mark. Prejudice (from tradition) has more effect than greed. Racism in the southern US is not derived from whites wanting to be richer and more powerful than blacks, (pardon my use of these terms) but from what they were taught.

Your statement offers credence to my very point cms. Why were southern whites taught that blacks were lesser creatures than them? Why were these teachings valuable? Because otherwise, 200 years ago, there would have been even more bloodshed and discord in relation to slavery.

Why was black slavery in the US important? One and only one reason - it offered incredibly cheap labor for massively rich white men to grow richer upon.

White men needed slaves to sustain the majestic financial profits they enjoyed during the days of slavery. Decent humans would not in any way shape or form allow other human beings to be enslaved, forced to work 20 hour days without proper food, shelter, clothing or attention to the basic emotional needs of humankind. What were the rich white men who wanted to be richer white men to do? Implant the basic idea that black people were not "human", that they were a lesser species. This allowed them to treat black people as one would treat work animals, and no one cared for nearly 120 years.

Posted By: Rot Bottom

Why was black slavery in the US important? One and only one reason - it offered incredibly cheap labor for massively rich white men to grow richer upon.

I do not refute this point, or anything you say in respect to slavery, other than that African Americans were not discriminated against because whites had the need to feel superior in wealth, but because African Americans were different and were seen as "stupid and backwards"

A further note, regarding pre-Industrial Revolution Europe's slavery.

Most of Europe did allow slavery. In fact, slavery existed throughout Europe all the way back to the Greek Empire, into the Roman Empire, and afterward. In the 1400s, the Catholic Pope named the sale of Christian slaves to non-Christian nations a crime and a sin. Slavery existed in middle Europe up to and including the Industrial Revolution. It was an enslavement of fellow white, Christian Europeans.

I think, however, most British and Americans would not call it "slavery" per se, because it involved whites and the term "slavery" has such power in our minds and hearts regarding black people (and for the British, I believe, it has powerful connotation with Indians as well). We would probably refer to it as being indentured, not enslaved.

Posted By: Trance

You seem to be addressing religion as the problem - it is not. Prejudice is the problem. Did you know something like 80% of males will have prejudice against strangers they've never met solely because they belong to a different group? That number increases when people are free to choose their group, like they are in religion. How many times have you seen it? Riots breaking out in football games just because fellow human beings are sat on the other side of the stadium. In my opinion, humanity won't get very far until prejudices are eliminated, which doesn't seem very likely considering human nature.

Isn't it possible that religion is the root of the problem? It is our beliefs and differences and, yes, in turn our prejudices that seperate each society from one another.

Think back to the dawn of humanity and what the psychology of our smaller-brained ancestors could have been. Homo sapiens, the oldest humans, were becoming self-aware and were begining to understand the concept of consequence and perhaps small traces of what we consider to be 'emotion.' As these pre-humans became more and more aware of themselves and the world that surrounded them, they looked to the sky and were in awe. Perhaps they could not comprehend the massive ball of fire in the sky that brought light and warmth to all of the land, and yet, they were amazed by it; therefore, this idol was viewed as a higher being, and pre-humanity began to praise it and call it a 'God.' Each individual society would make their own beliefs based on their environment and sociological structure.

Why was this our only way of coming up with a way to instill moral values into each civilization? New knowledge and farther understanding of our world and ourselves as a species can give us the ability to create more peaceful moral values systems. However, science should not be relied on entirely, lest it being horrifically abused. Wouldn't it be more sensible to combine the incredible wisdom and devotion of religion with the intelligence and vast potential of science?

Posted By: Rot Bottom

Realistic" and "sensible" are such utterly relative words. I may find it sensible that a human life be founded in seeking peace in a simplistic surrounding while someone else may belief it is sensible to fill their life with as much "stuff" as is possible. Realistic? To me it is realistic to spend as much time enjoying my life and relaxing as possible. Others may think it is Realistic to do whatever it takes to make the most money possible. So what exactly do you mean?

By realisitic and sensible, I meant to our ability to use our intelligent, precise, and detailed observations to create a more realisitic base for our moral system rather than basing it on the extremely ancient and primitive observations of our ancestors. However, it does not end there, we must learn as much as we can and absorb everything we can.

Posted By: Rot Bottom

It is not "tradition" that stops people from working together. It is greed. Not necessarily the greed of the many "Christian soldiers" or the "Islamic Jihadists", but the greed of those aforementioned incredibly few who control nearly all of the resources of this world. Those rich few will do or say whatever it takes to fulfill their two prime goals: increase their own wealth, limit others' wealth. There is a tertiary goal inherent among these rich few as well: disallow anyone from limiting, negating or controlling their wealth.

This is where wars start. This is where hatred begins. It is not started with the common man, but ends there. Those who control resources control media, religion and communication, which means, in effect, they control to a large degree the thoughts of a great majority of humanity. It is in the best interests of the very rich to have many, many hoards of humanity believing the following: "The rich are just like me because of (skin color/religion/geographic nationality/etc)" and "I would do my best to defend those that are just like me" as well as "Anyone who is not like me is a potential enemy".

There is too much control over humanity altogether. We see the aggressive, disturbed, and violent as needing to be controlled. We create these laws to control our people and stop those who would "misbehave." If we lose control of these few that decide to misbehave, we traumatize them with a horrific punishment known as confinement. But why do the rich feel the need to instill that control? What creates the mindset for someone to do something society views to be "wrong"? For that matter, why have we created this sense of "right" and "wrong", which is clearly based on religious morals and values?

There are hundreds of thousands of reasons why any one person would perform any specific action. Psychology lies beneath all behavior. Those who would commit unfavorable acts can be enlightened and helped to understand the consequences of their actions and the unnecessity for their aggressive or irrational behavior. But can humanity truly reach such a level of understanding and enlightenment so as to finally heal those who are perhaps ignorant, disturbed, violent, and irrational?

Time will tell.

Posted By: The Inquisitor

Think back to the dawn of humanity and what the psychology of our smaller-brained ancestors could have been. Homo sapiens, the oldest humans, were becoming self-aware and were begining to understand the concept of consequence and perhaps small traces of what we consider to be 'emotion.'

For a fun-to-read and rather easy to understand, yet entirely comprehensive, book that presents many viewpoints of credible theorists and psychologists regarding self-awareness read the book "Is Data Human?, Or, The Metaphysics of Star Trek" by Richard Hanley. Awesome book, asking many questions set inside the universe Gene Roddenberry created. It addresses self-awareness in many forms, as well as other metaphysical concepts.

In fact, metaphysicists believe that for the most part, emotions exist not within the brain itself but in the brain stem, the most primitive part of our brain. It's surmised that ancient pre-Humans in fact had nearly all of the emotions that we today have, they merely lacked an awareness of self in much the same way that a dog or a cat may act in self interest but does not have an awareness of self (which I disagree with, but it's still the commonly held belief).

Posted By: The Inquisitor

By realisitic and sensible, I meant to our ability to use our intelligent, precise, and detailed observations to create a more realisitic base for our moral system rather than basing it on the extremely ancient and primitive observations of our ancestors. However, it does not end there, we must learn as much as we can and absorb everything we can.

Inq, the reality is, as I stated in the section of my post you quoted, relative. Reality is in fact relative for the very most part! (See my long post in the PHOBIAs thread for just a touch on that). I firmly believe that perception truly is reality. This is based not only on my first hand experiences but hundreds of hours of study into psychology of self, reality and perception.

Let's see an example. Bob and Tom are two people who have incredibly different outlooks on life. I'm not attempting to be stereotypical here, but present a summarized human perspective.
* Bob is quiet, keeps his thoughts to himself, prefers to be alone, is 22 years old, dislikes crowds, is passive, does not particularly apply himself to most things, doesn't make much eye contact, is inexperienced with women but not entirely so, believes that pursuing a dream is more important than pursuing a career, dislikes money, and is a very religious Christian. Bob works as a junior accountant for a widget company.

* Tom is boisterous, expresses himself loudly and speaks his mind in most all situations, is 30 years old, loves crowded places, is very aggressive and takes control of situations he's in, applies himself as thoroughly as he can to situations that he feels will derive a profit of some sort for him, believes that money is the most important aspect of life, has no religion ("At least not an organized one!") but is spiritual, loves women, and works as a residential construction foreman.

Even if we assume that both men are college educated, both are in relatively good health, both are unmarried and have no children, and have other similar characteristics and interests in the vast majority of influences that help shape a person (obviously with the exception of introvert/extrovert personalities), we will find them experiencing, perceiving, and responding to situations incredibly differently).

Now let's say Bob and Tom encounter a near identical situation. This situation can be almost anything, and we can tell from the descriptions of their personalities that they will have extremely different responses to that situation, right? Let's put it to the test and see what they observe, feel and how they respond. Let's make it something very simple, say... a trip to the grocery store. Here's a time slice of their trip, with generic nouns instead of pronouns:

Walking through the produce aisle, "the man" grabs three red apples to take with him for lunches later in the week, as he turns back to his shopping cart (basket for you Brits), he notices a female employee wearing an apron emblazoned with the logo of the store he's in standing right the other side of his cart, going about her day. She's facing the man. The employee smiles brightly and says "Hi how are you today? Need any help?" ...

Here is where we will have some serious deviation in observations, responses, and reality.

* Bob's response is to nod feebly attempt a smile that doesn't quite work, looks down into his cart as he puts his apples in the cart. Bob keeps his head down and continues his shopping, almost certainly leaving the produce area immediately. Bob probably feels embarrassed that a stranger spoke to him, and likely quite uncomfortable that he was forced into any sort of response with that stranger (especially a female stranger!) Bob's reality in this situation is an incredibly uneasy and possibly frustrated one.

* Tom smiles a broad beaming smile back and strikes up a conversation that probably starts with something like "I'm finding everything! Thanks!" followed with something along the lines of "So how's your day going today?" or some other conversation-starting inanity. Tom probably feels happy that he gets to interact with a stranger, and quite comfortable doing so (especially a female stranger!) Tom's reality in this situation is a positive and delighted one.

This whole intercourse took probably 6-12 seconds in reality and we have a massive deviation in response. Imagine the deviation that would occur given Billions of subjective realities over an average 74 year lifespan!

I've oversimplified this quite a bit, but I hope you get the point, which is:
There's no way to have any sort of "guiding force" for any society in which individuals exist. Observations are not always measurable, belief and experience and perception dictate reality. Take examples from reality. Although science can QUALITATIVELY MEASURE THE AGE OF THE EARTH, there are Christian "Scientists" who believe that God created the earth circa 5500-5600 years ago. Even though all human beings are of the same species, there are vast numbers of humans who believe anyone who is not like them must be of a different "race" (which does mean species).

Posted By: The Inquisitor

There is too much control over humanity altogether. We see the aggressive, disturbed, and violent as needing to be controlled. We create these laws to control our people and stop those who would "misbehave." If we lose control of these few that decide to misbehave, we traumatize them with a horrific punishment known as confinement. But why do the rich feel the need to instill that control? What creates the mindset for someone to do something society views to be "wrong"? For that matter, why have we created this sense of "right" and "wrong", which is clearly based on religious morals and values?

The covenant between government and the people exists for once purpose, and one alone. The government exists to protect each and every citizen from each and every other citizen. As to the control issue, see my above post regarding the greed of the very few with control of nearly all the world's resources. They dictate how the world is shaped, not you and I.

Posted By: cmseagle

wow, that's probably the longest post I've ever seen. I'll read it later, I promise.

I've posted longer in the past, and this one may be longer still.

Those who would commit unfavorable acts can be enlightened and helped to understand the consequences of their actions and the unnecessity for their aggressive or irrational behavior.

Sorry, I missed this part.

You need to understand also, the psychology of the violent or criminal mind. For the most part, and I'm not assuming or generalizing here, but based upon thousands of man-hours of research and my review (over maybe 40-50 total hours in the past 3 years?) of such research, there are some things you do not seem to understand of the violent mind.

Many people who are violent or act in ways harmful to others live in a reality in which their desire to control or destroy or gain outweighs the desire (and RIGHT!) of others to exist outside of the negative influence of their control, destruction, and gain (which equates to a loss on the victim's part). It's not a lack of education, it's a matter of perception.

It's a very common part of human mentality, where risk vs. reward has been weighed, and the desired outcome of a violent or invasive or abusive act outweighs the risk of imprisonment, the impact upon the victim or the impact upon oneself even. Many, many violent or invasive criminals like rapists, robbers, or muggers have described their mentality in the exact same words that many, many salesmen, fast-talkers, and hustlers as well as non-violent criminals like drug dealers, pimps and prostitutes have used: FUCK YOU, PAY ME.

If you get an opportunity to wrap your head around that simple phrase, I mean really understand it, you'll see how easy it is to understand, and how it can be applied in many, many realities.

Posted By: Paulustrious

But well worth reading. The introspective mental equivalent of LOL.

HUH?!

I removed this sorry. IT was a total derail.

Posted By: The Inquisitor

Isn't it possible that religion is the root of the problem?

I don't believe religion is any problem. Some people hide behind their religion - which isn't good.Although It's human nature. If somebody does something good they'll accept any and all praise given to them. If they screw up, suddenly it's not their fault anymore, but what can they blame it on? Most people don't care.

Posted By: The Inquisitor

? It is our beliefs and differences and, yes, in turn our prejudices that seperate each society from one another.

I'm not so sure I agree. Prejudices can be created by lots of things - or nothing at all. Two white atheists, both born in America, in the same state, brought up in the same area (although they never met) with the same education and job can still be prejudice against each other easily.

I see what you mean.

Just being philosophical, but...

Let's say for a moment that there is such a thing as a higher being, but perhaps this higher being is not the entity most of humanity would think it to be.

Let me explain. Everything in the universe, every tiny spec of dirt, every drip of water, every star in the sky, every person on this planet, is made of the exact same basic material. Atoms. All we are composed of are tiny particles gravitating around each other. Every single thing in existance (that we know of) is made of this exact same material. As scientific research grows, however, we find that even these are not the smallest parts of existance. It has been discovered that even these tiny molecules are also composed of smaller sub-particles.

But how do we know it stops there? Just because our current technological limits prevent us from being able to see anything smaller than those sub-particles, does this mean that it is as small as matter can get? If a fraction/decimal number can become infinitely smaller then perhaps a thousand decimal places underneath our existance lies a sub-existance? For that matter, how BIG can existance get? Could we be made up of thousands of other tiny universes (what we call "molecules"), and our universe is only one tiny molecule that is part of a gigantic existance greater than anything we could ever imagine? In that greater existance that we are a tiny part of, could there be sentient beings? If we are unaware of any sub-universes that we are composed of, then how do we know that the greater universes we are a part of are aware of us?

Does any of this sound possible? Or even probable? It is definitely entertaining to speculate.

Posted By: The Inquisitor

Does any of this sound possible? Or even probable? It is definitely entertaining to speculate.

It does sound possible. It's a widely held theory by the scientific community that has grown larger as more and more depths of the microscopic world are explored, as well as great depths of the macroscopic universe. It's been noted before, often, how like a solar system a cell structure is, and how like a galaxy a molecule can be.

I in fact hold this as a particular belief, that our universe is but one of many that is, on some plane of legitimate perspective, merely a molecule within a much larger universe, in the same way that a molecule is but a microcosm of existence but is an encapsulated existence of itself.

Posted By: Trance

The point is: Everything has a smaller part: But so what?

I'll respond later gotta go meet the wife for lunch!
and... later!

So what?! So WHAT?!

Well, we know quantitatively that there are microcosmic "worlds" and even what can be dubbed "universes", bodies that interact entirely with one another in a manner completely different with which they seem to interact with one another on our plane of general perception (without the aid of instruments that we utilize to observe these microcosmic systems), and in fact they react with us QUANTITATIVELY (read up on "wave/particle duality" and study how particular particles can behave as a wave in general, and as a particle when observed by humans, and vice versa!)! Yes that was all one sentence. I am not creating run on sentences, but fully structured sentences. Screw you!
So based upon that data (and boy am I typing fast! I've got some intelligent passion and green apple Pucker runnin' through my veins right now!) and the data that we have concerning the probable existence of macrocosmic systems which react with one another in ways that are completely different from the ways in which they appear to interact with one another on our relative general plane of perception.

So what?! you may ask again?

So, it's entirely likely, given the profuse nature of life, and the generally-agreed upon scientific theory that life will come about in any open or closed system in which the most minute favorable conditions occur, that there is "life" that exists within these macrocosmic systems.

Life? Well, there is life that exists within our general plane of perception which we can recognize as life. There is also much life that exists in a microcosmic plane of perception, in the form of multitudinous smaller-than-the-naked-eye forms. It is acknowledged that viruses are a form of life, and most exist within a single-cellular form. Also, bacteria, amoebae, and germs can all exist as single-cellular life. Further, it has been proposed many times by many different theoreticians and scientists that many types of molecules (proteins for one, as well as some short-chain acids) act with many of the same characteristics of "life".

So what?!

We have qualitative evidence that life exists within a microscopic plane of perception and within our general plane of perception. The next logical step within this chain of scientific theories is that there is likely life that exists within a macrocosmic plane of perception! We would be includants of this macrocosmic plane of perception, by default.

So what?!

So WHAT?!

We would, in the same manner that cells and proteins and many other combinant microscopic plane of perception life forms make up our corporeal bodies, make up the corporeal forms of any life forms that exist in a macrocosmic plane of perception!

We would be the bacteria residing in a square nanometer of the the anus of a gigantic, unknowable life form! And other systems (or even universes!) would exist within the corporeal form of this same macrocosmic life.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT! (pardon me).

What about lust?

Posted By: The Inquisitor

But how do we know it stops there?

We don't, that's what makes science fun!

Please don't miss my post above. I edited my earlier post about going to meet my wife for lunch with something much more substantial.

IT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND! (Like most of what I say does).

Posted By: Rot Bottom

So what?!

So WHAT?!

We would, in the same manner that cells and proteins and many other combinant microscopic plane of perception life forms make up our corporeal bodies, make up the corporeal forms of any life forms that exist in a macrocosmic plane of perception!

We would be the bacteria residing in a square nanometer of the the anus of a gigantic, unknowable life form! And other systems (or even universes!) would exist within the corporeal form of this same macrocosmic life.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT! (pardon me).

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I mentioned religion because the fundamental issue in your original statement was ...

Posted By: The Inquisitor

Let's say for a moment that there is such a thing as a higher being, but perhaps this higher being is not the entity most of humanity would think it to be.

Ok - let's say for a moment. In my maths and logic classes we normally finished with some form of reductio ad absurdum or a proof via a method such as induction.

but science is only a step away from turning these hypotheses into theories.

In terms of sub-atomic theory, science is not going anywhere near your hypothesis of infinite indivisibility AAIAA. My very superficial knowledge of string / M theory does not lead down that path. But please post a link so I can read about it. Especially if it relates in some way to a God.

In terms of a super-macrocosm, ( where our universe is one of many ) I do know know how this relates to a higher being.

Posted By: Paulustrious

weird hypotheses like these

They're not actually weird. They may seem weird to you, but they're simply logic paths based on relevant data. It's called extrapolation of concept.

An example: If you have certain knowledge that apples come from a particular tree, that trees grow from seeds, and apple seeds come from inside of apples, you can safely and with scientific certainty assume that apple seeds grow apple trees.

Posted By: Paulustrious

In terms of sub-atomic theory, science is not going anywhere near your hypothesis of infinite indivisibility AAIAA. My very superficial knowledge of string / M theory does not lead down that path

No offense, but your knowledge is (as you admit) superficial. This is the very tip of the iceberg, but you may want to visit a local college's bookstore or even a Barnes and Noble, and check out some current books on relativity, string theory, quantum mechanics and quantum physics. The universe is startling.

http://gtalumni.org/Publications/techtopics/win91/outofthis.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TJ4-4CTN2KF-5&_user=10&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ff8944fb85e5a6c7b6561cf4ed9bcf81

http://www.drury.edu/ess/philsci/PineCh8.html

Hahaha.

Posted By: Trance

If atoms as we know them contain smaller galaxies, why aren't they expanding like ours?

Great question. One hypothesis involves the relative speed of the microcosmic world. You do realize of course that on a sub-atomic level, the relative speed of existence is phenomenally faster than in our plane of perception, correct?

For example: (the following are not Gullifacts!)
- A single cell of E. Coli can reproduce itself in no more than 15 minutes.
- Many bacteria have a cell life of under 1 hour, which means it is created, lives its full life cycle, then replicates itself all in the course of 60 minutes.
- Cells within some insect embryos have a cellular mitosis speed of under 8 minutes.
- Some viruses have been measured to replicate themselves at the rate of up to 1,000 cells per second (Replicating at the rate of 1,000,000 nucleotides per nanosecond!! ZOMFG! (In comparison, our liver cells can take 1 year to complete cell mitosis, and typical skin cells take up to 90 hours to complete the process of mitosis.)

So the speed of existence on a microcosmic level is much faster than the speed of existence on our plane of perception. This actually means that the "worlds", "galaxies" and "universes" of the microcosmic plane of perception are simply growing, replicating, then degrading just as rapidly. So, unlike our theory of the Big Bang (and later the Big Crunch) of our own plane of perception, the microcosmic world is experiencing large scale destruction and reformation at a much faster rate.

It is another logical step within this chain of theories that relative time on a macrocosmic plane of perception would be orders of magnitude slower than what we experience. So maybe, the giant whose anus our universe occupies but a small square nanometer of, really is a "all knowing, all seeing" omnipresence, who "Is was and ever shall be".

If the ideas here seem strange to you, and you've only just recently encountered them, please don't take them as some odd fancy. There truly is much scientific background that grew these scientific THEORIES (which means, in scientific terms, "as-close-to-truth-as-we-can-come-and-still-be-objective-when-new-knowledge-surfaces"). Much like you cannot fully understand and grasp gravity by the simple phrase: "Gravity pulls you down to the earth", without understanding all the effects that the rest of the bodies in our Solar System, our piece of the Spiral of the galaxy, other galaxies and all other bodies and non-body formations in our universe interplay on one another to create the special circumstances of OUR earth-normal 1.0G gravity, you cannot understand macrocosmic or microcosmic universes theory without having understanding of all the other forces that interplay with the basic statements you're learning about now.

Thanks!

Prof. R. Bottom

Posted By: Trance

Does that really answer why the particles aren't expanding though?

see:

Posted By: Rot Bottom

the microcosmic world is experiencing large scale destruction and reformation at a much faster rate.

I could have been clearer. Let me elucidate:

... much faster rate. [addition] This means that, although the particles that make up atoms and cells of our universe really do experience the same sort of "spread" that large scale bodies, it happens in a different way. All the time, molecules are forming out of particles all the time, as well as degrading out of their molecular shapes and into composite atoms and into new molecules all the time.

If these microcosmic particles were sized to our plane of perception, you would not ask "Why aren't they expanding", you would ask "Why are the bodies within our (normal) plane of perception not moving at all, compared to those things!?".

Think about this, as a companion reflection to your "are particles expanding?" thought: Quanta (quantum particles) have measurably existed in multiple locations, separated (on our plane of perception) by vast distances (hundreds of miles, in fact), which on their plane of perception is about as widely distant as two galaxies (on the order of millions of parsecs(1 Parsec = ~3.0857 × 10^16 meters)) are on our plane of perception. So how does a quantum that is perhaps 1/10,000,000th of an inch big exist in two vastly, widely separated locations simultaneously? Fugg if I know, but think about it a while. It may just turn your brain inside out, so be careful.