1
   

The Golden Proportion, and scientific advance

 
 
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 07:36 am
Science has come a long way, in a short period of time.

How much of a non-sequitur between science and religion can be sustained?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,056 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
jgweed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 11:44 am
@ValueRanger,
Could you clarify the relationship between the interesting article to which you linked and your question?
Thanks,
John
richrf
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 12:43 pm
@ValueRanger,
ValueRanger;76083 wrote:
Science has come a long way, in a short period of time.

How much of a non-sequitur between science and religion can be sustained?


Interesting article. Thanks.

Rich
0 Replies
 
ValueRanger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Jul, 2009 09:49 am
@jgweed,
jgweed;76109 wrote:
clarify the relationship between

What's the relationship between any ordered or chaotic set?

Is chaos contained in the order/sequitur set?

Is there a Golden Ratio between your choices (software), and genetic hardware that is passed on from generation to generation?

How much advance is due to prolific tools?

Do we have proportionate tools (software/philosophy) to equal our stunning advances in genetics?

Does one of the world's top problem solvers qualify higher than a religious leader, in advancing the highest and best behavioral science (again, software, or philosophy) tools?

Does the acceleration (see: technological singularity) of human data necessitate an equally qualified filtering state? Since everyone is a scientist/measurer (qiqo), should we be making the highest and best science education a prerequisite?

What happens to a system when the distance between the lowest and highest qualia state, is too much of a non-sequitur? Do these massive vacillations equally cause a massive fall?

What specific tool qualifies for eloquently bridging such systemic disintegration, and how can you make a difference?
0 Replies
 
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jul, 2009 02:03 am
@ValueRanger,
ValueRanger;76083 wrote:
Science has come a long way, in a short period of time.

How much of a non-sequitur between science and religion can be sustained?


We can separate nature or science from divinity but they must meet and dialogue at the moment of creation , the big bang if you like.

If science can one day describe how the big bang happened then they might be able to dispense with the idea of a creator god.

I always get goose bumps when I think deeply about existence, it simply has always been and being

The universe is not all there IS of or the totality of existence, there must be more because the singularity that created our beautiful universe must have come from somewhere else!!

Peace
0 Replies
 
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jul, 2009 03:23 am
@ValueRanger,
ValueRanger;76083 wrote:
How much of a non-sequitur between science and religion can be sustained?
For the individual? It will just be a matter of taste - some will always be drawn to metaphorical explanations for what we percieve to be reality because they are easier to understand than those which science derives. Others will also mistrust the very nature of reality due to philosophical insights such as "am I the sage that dreampt he was a butterfly or the butterfly dreaming he is a sage".

Personally I think religion increasingly looks like an egotistic need to anthropomorphise the unknown, so for me the non-sequitur has gone beyond breaking point. However, there are people who are as far gone in the opposite direction.

Why? I expect it serves some evolutionary purpose to have a certain degree of the population susceptable to faith because these metaphores are in some way useful - the shaman of a hunter-gatherer society is no doubt a handy man to have about.

Or - because science is a slower motivator to personal purpose. Adopting the general values and purposes of a given religion is much more expedient than subjecting oneself to a godless existential search for meaning - even if I think the latter is more likely to produce worthy results.
dalesvp
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 06:35 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;76952 wrote:
...godless existential search for meaning....


Interesting comment or turn of phrase. I would agree completely 'IF' you are referring to an anthropomorphic "god" as there is no such thing. That would be man creating God in man's image which of course is nonsense. On the other hand there are Creative Forces guided by unseen laws and principles that have and are continuously fashioning the visible and invisible universe. If we were so broad-minded as to consider this matrix of intelligent creativity as, say for instance, a Creative Source/Force, then I believe we would be describing what so many are vainly searching for in their anthropomorphic imaginings. This would imply so-called God is in actuality Pure Undifferentiated Consciousness continuously sentient via sympathetic vibration/oscillation of all activity and state-of-being of all individuations regardless of Space.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 03:48 pm
@dalesvp,
dalesvp;77392 wrote:
This would imply so-called God is in actuality Pure Undifferentiated Consciousness continuously sentient via sympathetic vibration/oscillation of all activity and state-of-being of all individuations regardless of Space.
I don't think consciousness is a prerequisite for creativity.

Volcanoes create lava, and rocks, and crystals of astounding beauty and basalt hexagonal formations - and they do so without what I think of as consciousness.

They are created in turn by tectonic forces which are not what I think of as conscious.

Stars are also not conscious as far as I can tell, yet they take hydrogen and from it create the other elements.

So it strikes me that assigning the label of "conscious" to the "ultimate creative forces" of the universe IS anthropomorphic - because as far as the gestalt is concerned humans are paragons of what it is to be conscious.

But in comparison to the creative power of stars, which work regardless of thought or feeling as far as I can tell, we're not particularly productive.
dalesvp
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 04:00 pm
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen;77475 wrote:
I don't think consciousness is a prerequisite for creativity.

Volcanoes create lava, and rocks, and crystals of astounding beauty and basalt hexagonal formations - and they do so without what I think of as consciousness.


Volcanoes are not creative. They are simply an orifice for other forces.

Quote:
They are created in turn by tectonic forces which are not what I think of as conscious.


A volcano may be "created" but is nothing more than a pile of rocks and lava heaped up by Newtonian forces - which are by definition non-creative.

Quote:
Stars are also not conscious as far as I can tell, yet they take hydrogen and from it create the other elements.


This stellar H conversion process is in theory only....

Quote:
So it strikes me that assigning the label of "conscious" to the "ultimate creative forces" of the universe IS anthropomorphic - because as far as the gestalt is concerned humans are paragons of what it is to be conscious.


Actually it's the other way around. Beside, egoic intellectualism is not what was meant by conscious. Egoic intellectualism is but partial conscious. Some even call it sleeping which is rather unconscious.

Quote:
But in comparison to the creative power of stars, which work regardless of thought or feeling as far as I can tell, we're not particularly productive.


When considering only the surface appearances one (not me!) might be tempted to believe the sensorial experience. But true creativity is beyond the senses which can only appreciate the effects of creativity.
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 01:21 pm
@dalesvp,
dalesvp;77477 wrote:
Volcanoes are not creative. They are simply an orifice for other forces.


http://www.ee.qub.ac.uk/dsp/mmns2003/picture/giants_causeway.jpg

Ahh, lovely! Better than most art galleries and made by a mountain that vomited molten rock.

Quote:
A volcano may be "created" but is nothing more than a pile of rocks and lava heaped up by Newtonian forces - which are by definition non-creative.
A definition declared by whom? As far as I am aware Newton was silent on the issue of whether or not his theories involved or influenced creativity. Are you simply declaring by fiat that Newtonian forces are non-creative by definition?

Not only that, but plate tectonics - responsible for the creation of volcanos - were not hypothesised by Newton, and were only developed into a coherent theory in the last 50 years or so.

Shakespeare was a creation of the same kinds of forces that created planets and volcanoes. So even if the forces were - by definition - non-creative (and I think they are not) - their apparent products are.

Quote:
This stellar H conversion process is in theory only....
Like those Newtonian forces you seem so sure about.

Theory colloquially expressed might amount to mothing much, but in scientific terms refers to a governing body of explanations for a number of known facts. So to say something is "only" a theory in scientific terms, is to say something is a damn good explanation in colloquial terms - not "just a hypothesis".

Quote:
Egoic intellectualism is not what was meant by conscious.
True, but conscious and conciousness are different, and the latter carries the idea of awareness and, in typical usage, refers often to self-awareness and even implications of sapience ("human degrees of" consciouness).

Quote:
But true creativity is beyond the senses which can only appreciate the effects of creativity.
If this were the case - how could it even be known to be the case?

A definition of creativity I prefer is "original conception that has value".
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jul, 2009 05:15 am
@ValueRanger,
Quote:
How much of a non-sequitur between science and religion can be sustained?


This statement is a non-sequitur, being a short, absurd statement used for comic or dramatic effect.

The only point of which is, write a sentence - even a non-sequitur - containing the words 'science' and 'religion' and you're bound to get a response.

Good work. Nice rhetorical device and a good return of copy for little effort output.
ValueRanger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jul, 2009 09:10 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;77885 wrote:
This statement is a non-sequitur, being a short, absurd statement used for comic or dramatic effect.

The only point of which is, write a sentence - even a non-sequitur - containing the words 'science' and 'religion' and you're bound to get a response.

Good work. Nice rhetorical device and a good return of copy for little effort output.

Ahhh life...

Set A contains Set B...

Imagine the differences to celebrate!

So much or so little, and the sequitur of human choice...

Imagine that!

;-)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Golden Proportion, and scientific advance
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/28/2021 at 12:42:09