Mitch Cronin Posted September 5, 2009 Share Posted September 5, 2009 Everything we are... everything we see... everything we don't see... all of us... we're all born of just this kind of beginning: APOD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted September 5, 2009 Share Posted September 5, 2009 Wasn't that off episode #6 of the old Star Trek? Nice picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 5, 2009 Author Share Posted September 5, 2009 Maybe Star Trek used some similar words, but it's Carl Sagan who first called us "star stuff", in a much more eloquent manner than I ever could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted September 5, 2009 Share Posted September 5, 2009 Mitch - thanks - wonderful photograph, (as viewed by our twin, tunable electromagnetic receivers). I can still hear Carl saying "we are all star stuff" in Cosmos...brilliant series - what a mind, and what a loss to science when he died of cancer. He was married for a while to Lynn Margulis who is well worth reading in her own right. In 1997 she wrote a book with Dorian Sagan, entitled, Microcosmos: four billion years of evolution from our microbial ancestors which discusses the evolution of blue-green cyanobacteria and the emergence of the poisonous, oxygen-rich atmosphere. Chapter 6 on p99 of the book (reachable by the above link), is entitled, The Oxygen Holocaust and is a fascinating discussion which turns on its head popular notions of "our" environment vice "life's" environment and even adds to the current discussion on CO2 "emissions". Such awarenesses are lessons in humility if nothing else! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 5, 2009 Author Share Posted September 5, 2009 Mitch - thanks - wonderful photograph, (as viewed by our twin, tunable electromagnetic receivers). I can still hear Carl saying "we are all star stuff" in Cosmos...brilliant series - what a mind, and what a loss to science when he died of cancer. He was married for a while to Lynn Margulis who is well worth reading in her own right. In 1997 she wrote a book with Dorian Sagan, entitled, Microcosmos: four billion years of evolution from our microbial ancestors which discusses the evolution of blue-green cyanobacteria and the emergence of the poisonous, oxygen-rich atmosphere. Chapter 6 on p99 of the book (reachable by the above link), is entitled, The Oxygen Holocaust and is a fascinating discussion which turns on its head popular notions of "our" environment vice "life's" environment and even adds to the current discussion on CO2 "emissions". Such awarenesses are lessons in humility if nothing else! Wow! Thanks Don. I've just spent the last few hours immersed in that.... Really interesting stuff! And yes, even if life "as we know it" can't survive on this planet, it seems as though lots of possibilities still exist for that which we don't know, or isn't yet. In the grand scheme of things, or, to put that another way, in the "cosmological time scale", whether we humans exist for another few thousand years or not means very little to nothing at all... We're but the tiniest of hiccups in the life of a tiny, 4 & 1/2 billion year old spec of matter orbiting a tiny little star in a galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars, which is itself just one of billions of galaxies floating around in the universe. ...and some of us think we're so damned important!? ...back to reading... Thanks again for that link! Cheers, Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted September 5, 2009 Share Posted September 5, 2009 Mitch - glad you liked the links. It's fascinating stuff to contemplate on an afternoon! Makes me want to bring out the old VHS tapes of Sagan and re-watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planett Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 My cure for personal hubris is viewing badlands fossils, visiting the arctic, and watching my 10 month old son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 8, 2009 Author Share Posted September 8, 2009 Mitch - glad you liked the links. It's fascinating stuff to contemplate on an afternoon! Makes me want to bring out the old VHS tapes of Sagan and re-watch. I'll betcha what you had originally posted in this slot would have whizzed right over my head, but I'm sure I saw more here a couple days ago.... I thought I'd leave it 'til I could muster some synapse energy to answer.... and now it's gone? (I should probably leave well enough alone, since my synapses haven't been firing very well at all for some time now... but I'm a glutton for punishment... and a curious sort of nutbar) In any case.... All I've learned (or tried to learn) about astronomy in the last year or so has convinced me that: We must be either nothing at all - not-a, zilch, totaly irrelevant, figments of our own delusions - or.... we're all in the process of one tiny portion of what it's all about. ...and that we humans, on this tiny, insignificant little dust mote that circles one of the smallest 10% of stars in this insignificant galaxy will, one day, move on to another form of existence that will make it all much clearer. I don't know which. ...but I have strong suspicions that the latter may be the case.... I used to excuse myself for stepping on ants, or swatting flies or mosquitos, because they were such puny little critters that couldn't possibly have any significance.... ... but now.... I see how close we are to even the tiniest of earthbound critters, in the scale of the universe.... Sometimes, when I consider the havok I once could so thoughtlessly create among bug populations, that wasn't so different, or any less meaningful - in the grander scheme of the universe - than the horrors someone like Hitler created among humans. Why are we any more meaningful than any other living thing? What makes us feel we've got any more right to live than a fish, for instance? Just because we can contemplate our own existence? Who's to say an ant doesn't? I once argued with Christians that dogs are as sentient as we are... When I told the preacher down the street that I agreed with the fellow who said "if it's true there are no dogs in heaven, then I want to go where all the dogs went" he said he thought they did go to heaven.... All I know is dogs are as capable of love as we are... In fact, sometimes they're much more capable! So they don't have a thumb, and they don't have language... they sure as hell do think. Maybe that restaurant at the edge of the galaxy, and "Deep Thought" (62 was it?), and the mice... have all the answers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 type the following into Google (or just copy and paste) Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything That will give you the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Guys, I just watched the ISS and the recently detached Space Shuttle do a "fly by" our apartment building. What beautiful formation "flying". The shuttle disappeared into the earth's shadow before the ISS indicating it's already descended quite a ways on its re-entry flight plan. An awesome sight I will not soon forget... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 In any case.... All I've learned (or tried to learn) about astronomy in the last year or so has convinced me that: We must be either nothing at all - not-a, zilch, totaly irrelevant, figments of our own delusions - or.... we're all in the process of one tiny portion of what it's all about. ...and that we humans, on this tiny, insignificant little dust mote that circles one of the smallest 10% of stars in this insignificant galaxy will, one day, move on to another form of existence that will make it all much clearer. I don't know which. ...but I have strong suspicions that the latter may be the case.... I used to excuse myself for stepping on ants, or swatting flies or mosquitos, because they were such puny little critters that couldn't possibly have any significance.... ... but now.... I see how close we are to even the tiniest of earthbound critters, in the scale of the universe.... Sometimes, when I consider the havok I once could so thoughtlessly create among bug populations, that wasn't so different, or any less meaningful - in the grander scheme of the universe - than the horrors someone like Hitler created among humans. Why are we any more meaningful than any other living thing? What makes us feel we've got any more right to live than a fish, for instance? Just because we can contemplate our own existence? Who's to say an ant doesn't? I once argued with Christians that dogs are as sentient as we are... When I told the preacher down the street that I agreed with the fellow who said "if it's true there are no dogs in heaven, then I want to go where all the dogs went" he said he thought they did go to heaven.... All I know is dogs are as capable of love as we are... In fact, sometimes they're much more capable! So they don't have a thumb, and they don't have language... they sure as hell do think. Maybe that restaurant at the edge of the galaxy, and "Deep Thought" (62 was it?), and the mice... have all the answers? Hi Mitch Interesting post. I recently read a book called Quantum Enigma. Here is the review of it from that Amazon site. In trying to understand the atom, physicists built quantum mechanics and found, to their embarrassment, that their theory intimately connects consciousness with the physical world. Quantum Enigma explores what that implies and why some founders of the theory became the foremost objectors to it. Authors Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner explain all of this in non-technical terms with help from some fanciful stories and anecdotes about the theory's developers. They present the quantum mystery honestly, with an emphasis on what is and what is not speculation. Quantum Enigma's description of the experimental quantum facts, and the quantum theory explaining them, is undisputed. Interpreting what it all means, however, is controversial. Every interpretation of quantum physics encounters consciousness. Rosenblum and Kuttner therefore turn to exploring consciousness itself--and encounter quantum physics. Free will and anthropic principles become crucial issues, and the connection of consciousness with the cosmos suggested by some leading quantum cosmologists is mind-blowing. Readers are brought to a boundary where the particular expertise of physicists is no longer a sure guide. They will find, instead, the facts and hints provided by quantum mechanics and the ability to speculate for themselves. "A remarkable and readable presentation of the basic mysteries of science, our universe, and human life. Critically important problems in our understanding are interestingly discussed with perception, depth, and careful objectivity." --Charles Townes, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics "Lively and thought-provoking." --The Washington Times "This book is unique. The clearest expositions I have ever seen." --George Greenstein, Professor of Astronomy, Amherst College "An immensely important and exciting book." --Raymond Chester Russ, editor of Journal of Mind and Behavior "Exposes the hidden skeleton in the physicist's closet." --Nick Herbert, author of Quantum Reality Essentially theses guys make the point that what is fundamental to everything is consciousness. If consciousness is fundamental it the begs the question; what if there were no conscious life? Would the world or the universe continue to exist at all in the way we perceive it? When you consider that everything including our bodies is made up of dimensionless particles it makes you realize how little we actually understand about our physicl existence. It seems to me that we are designed to perceive the universe in a particular way with our 5 senses. Science tells us that we are only able to perceive less than 5 percent of all that there is. (The rest being dark matter and dark energy.) Who knows what we might perceive if we had a different set of senses. Time passes at a different rate for all of us depending essentially on our motion. If we could travel at the speed of light we could be across the universe instantly. I always keep that thought in mind when the size of the universe seems overwhelming. Carl Sagan writes some fascinating stuff. This is my favourite. The Varieties of Scientific Experience About critters. My wife thinks I'm nuts when a pick up bugs in the house and transport them outside so we are together on that one. As a Christian who reads a fair bit of theology I think it is scipturally and theologically wrong to suggest that animals don't have a life beyond this one. Just the opposite is true. I also view science as "natural theology" and if it is our consciousness that continues to exist after physical death it is pretty obvious that as animals have consciousness, there continued existence is just as likely as our own. Heavy thoughts for early in the morning. Cheers Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 10, 2009 Author Share Posted September 10, 2009 Thanks Greg. I've just ordered that book. (Quantum Enigma)... Along similar lines... I was told recently of a documentary style movie which, among much else, describes an expirement (and I think I read about this somewhere - here?, from you maybe? ...not sure- in which it was discovered that when electrons are fired through a pair of slits in a backstop of sorts, they were found to move in a wave fasion and not straight lines.... but when they put detectors alongside (somehow), they travelled in straight lines! I'm not describing it well at all, but essentially, the folks doing the expirement were quite surprised to discover that the behaviour of the electrons appeared to change simply by being observed. ....I've asked the guy who has this movie to lend it to me! Fascinating stuff! I have three books by Sagan, including one that I haven't yet finished for some reason... it's been sitting by my bed for a long time now... maybe it's time I got back to it, and then I'll see about The Varieties of Scientific Experience. Cheers, Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Maybe Star Trek used some similar words, but it's Carl Sagan who first called us "star stuff", in a much more eloquent manner than I ever could. actually, I meant that photo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccairspace Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Wave-particle duality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Thanks Greg. I've just ordered that book. (Quantum Enigma)... Along similar lines... I was told recently of a documentary style movie which, among much else, describes an expirement (and I think I read about this somewhere - here?, from you maybe? ...not sure- in which it was discovered that when electrons are fired through a pair of slits in a backstop of sorts, they were found to move in a wave fasion and not straight lines.... but when they put detectors alongside (somehow), they travelled in straight lines! I'm not describing it well at all, but essentially, the folks doing the expirement were quite surprised to discover that the behaviour of the electrons appeared to change simply by being observed. ....I've asked the guy who has this movie to lend it to me! Fascinating stuff! I have three books by Sagan, including one that I haven't yet finished for some reason... it's been sitting by my bed for a long time now... maybe it's time I got back to it, and then I'll see about The Varieties of Scientific Experience. Cheers, Mitch Hi Mitch CC's, (Hi and long time no see or hear ) site is imformative and here is another related site. Uncertainty Principle It actually is even more amazing than that. Not only does a particle only take on its characteristics when it is measured or observed but it has been proven that when the observation takes place the history that was necessary for the outcome of the observation is created as well. In other other words, the observation or measurement not only affects the present but it also affects the past. The best book on all of this, IMHO, is a book called The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brians Greene. It is a phenomenal read. I've read it twice. Cheers Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Wave-particle duality Great to see you're still around CC. Hope all is well. Give us a shout when you're out this way again. Cheers Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Mitch, Greg; Yes, that space had another post, (which I kept as part of a larger project). I'm not really sure what to post as meaning itself if always on the move. From the book review above, is this interesting statement: Interpreting what it all means, however, is controversial. Every interpretation of quantum physics encounters consciousness. I see this as a really interesting observation on thought, (but I don't know what the word "thought" means, outside of what we mean for it to mean...Alice in the Looking Glass!). For me, the "interpretation" of quantum physics IS consciousness, not in the metaphysical sense as in "aha!, now I know what quantum physics is...consciousness!). Instead, I would consider that there is no such thing as "quantum physics" (or anything else) outside us, beyond our consciousness, rather our interpretation of consciousness. Consciousness isn't a thing - it is an interpretive gesture. It's interpretation, all the way down. We cannot know "what is" without interpreting - which means we cannot "know" without language, which is not reality at all but our gesture towards what some might see as "our map". I think hubris begins where the two are confused - that we assume there is a reality and that we can "know" a reality underlying our words and thoughts. We can't. It is inaccessible even as we swim in it. So I think the reviewer of the book is mostly right but is still thinking that the act of interpretation is the act of "if we could only just get closer to the real deal, we'd know more accurately 'what is' ", when the real deal IS interpretation and not metaphysics which tries to pretend that there is an underlying reality which "grounds" our notions and "if we could only just get the right interpretation, we'd know!". We already know because we always already write. This doesn't deny "the laws of physics" or what we interpret as quantum laws. The apple certainly fell on Newton's head; we cannot defy gravity without result. But language models and we, incorrectly I think, assume that that is the way the world "is", including our "place" in it. We have no "place", nor do we not have "no place". "Language is the house of being", Heidegger said. Nor does this plunge us into a fathomless relativism which is itself an interpretation of contrasting, (I would say, tautological), interpretations. Metaphysics and it's practical cousin, science, has, over the centuries, attempted to "find out reality" and tell us what it is. As we know from early schooling, the word discover is really two words..."dis" and "cover" so the notion of an underlying reality is resident in the words we use...if we could only "dis-cover", we would "get it right". There is nothing to "get right", no metaphysics of reality. There is only language, us and therefore consciousness. The reviewer also talks about "free will". Dan Dennett discusses this in a number of works - "Consciousness Explained", "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and "Freedom Evolves". This last posits the notion that while we may exist deterministically due to our physical/metaphysical limitations, "free will" evolves as we learn about ourselves and change our world and our capacity for control, (my interpretation!). I'm sitting among Roman ruins at the moment, about a hundred feet from the wall which surrounded Rome, knowing that how they saw the world made perfect sense to them as we, in our own hubris, see "correctly" too. When we look out, we see "us". Seeing the softly curved impressions in the stairs and pathways that we walk today, worn by those who's feet walked the same way a few thousand years ago (and knowing what the Chinese were doing long before Europeans did) lends a certain humility in interpretation. That, in perhaps more positive terms, is what I was thinking about saying in response to the notion of hubris and your wonderful comment. The world is not too much with us, (to alter the poet's words) - it IS us, and it is NOT us - we ARE special, and we are NOT special! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 11, 2009 Author Share Posted September 11, 2009 ...now talk about heavy thoughts for a morning head! ....(Friday mornings are often not the best for myself, given my Thursday night activities... ) Don, I think that's absolutely one of the coolest posts I've seen... sitting in the ruins of ancient Rome while pecking away on your laptop and contemplating the universe! That's just flippin neat! CCAirspace (I echo Greg's, Great to "see" you here again!) .... I've just meandered through that wiki link... but again, this post-Thursday night head has little room for devoted concentration and comprehension... so I'll try again later on. Greg... because Amazon makes it so easy... and because I trust your judgement , I've just ordered Fabric of the Cosmos as well. Thanks for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.