Hell in a Handbasket - an experiment

[TiSteamo]

It's the only thing we've been able to confirm exists...and we are constantly developing ways to detect/test/measure things that exist that our senses can't directly detect. If we can't find a way to verify a claim, there is no reasonable reason to accept said claim. At bear minimum one would have to withold judgement.

We must not delegate to the machines the task of understanding reality.
We must wake up our sleeping senses and develop them.
That is the way to REAL (r)evolution.
Which is then a "return" to what we were and what we should be.
Human, connected to the Whole.

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

Still can't think of a response to @TiSteamo's earlier post - he's paraphrasing Jesus, for Christ's sake - and he follows through with a solution, albeit radical (so you are concerned about AI...)

How about a practical solution to a favorite existential crisis: the Green Real Deal?

Trump Mocks Climate Change. That’s a Key to Defeating Him.
A Green Real Deal will put the president on the defensive in the next election.

By Thomas L. Friedman

...Trump wants to take the Green New Deal, co-sponsored by Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of the Bronx, and mock its aspiration to urgently decarbonize our electric grid, transportation sector, industries and buildings, while pairing all that with programs to ensure that every American can get a job and have access to health care and “safe, affordable, adequate housing,” as well as other social goods.

AOC’s rejoinder: “For everyone who wants to make a joke about that, you may laugh, but your grandkids will not.”

She is right. And given the choice between a “Green New Deal” that envisions scaling justice for all and Trump’s “Black New Deal,” which protects profitable pollution for the 1 percent, my heart is with the greens. But my head says you can’t transform our energy system and our social/economic one at scale all at once. We have to prioritize energy/climate. Because for the environment, later will be too late. Later is officially over.

And if Democrats approach this right — with a barrage of political ads paired with a focused green strategy, like the “Green Real Deal” proposed by Ernie Moniz, Barack Obama’s energy secretary, and Andy Karsner, George W. Bush’s assistant energy secretary for renewable energy — they can win on this issue in 2020 and make Trump the laughingstock.

Here are the kinds of political ads I’d run:

The Department of Energy’s 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report revealed that solar energy was employing more workers than the traditional coal, gas and oil industries combined. But Trump says he prefers big, beautiful coal. How do your kids feel about that?

 

[TiSteamo]

Still can't think of a response to @TiSteamo's earlier post - he's paraphrasing Jesus, for Christ's sake - and he follows through with a solution, albeit radical (so you are concerned about AI...)

The adjective "radical", used in this context, makes me laugh out loud, profoundly.
Because we must always accept the compromises of the middle, moderate class.
Poor middle class!

I believe that Jesus today would be considered a subversive.
He would be an enemy of Order.
Just like in his time.

"Hey you, long-haired freak! You're not welcome here!"

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

The adjective "radical", used in this context, makes me laugh out loud, profoundly.
Because we must always accept the compromises of the middle, moderate class.
Poor middle class!

Radical in contrast to pragmatic. Gotta admit, it's hardly quick and painless, and therefore unlikely.

I believe that Jesus today would be considered a subversive.
He would be an enemy of Order.
Just like in his time.

"Hey you, long-haired freak! You're not welcome here!"

Or maybe he'd take one look at how things worked out last time, cut his hair, and run for office.

 

[TiSteamo]

Yes, think when he asks his boss for Christmas holidays…


“Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and {yet} your heavenly Father feeds them.”

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

Since no one picked up on the entropy question, decided to look into by searching: +entropy; +"big bang"; god's fingerprint.

This returned a number of helpful - and completely unfamiliar - essays. Unfamiliar possibly because their authors occupy space, shall we say, outside the "materialist" bubble occupied by secular scientists and philosophers.

From Caner Taslaman, a philosophy professor at Yıldız Technical University in Istanbul, a city whose historical magnificence is rivaled only by its current vibrancy (at least at the turn of the millennia - haven't visited since).

Entropy and God

The measure used to express the quantity of entropy in the universe is given by dividing the number of photons (the smallest units of light), by the number of baryons (a class of particles of the atom; the proton and the neutron)...

If the Big Bang explosion had happened with a greater speed, the matter would have spread over such a vast area that the galaxies could not have been formed... If the explosion had happened with a lower speed, the matter spread around would have immediately, under the effect of gravity, collapsed into itself, becoming a singularity. The probability of the explosion happening at just the right speed for galaxies to form and life to appear, is even lower than that of a pencil standing on its point after it has been thrown...

We know that the entropy law states that the universe’s disorder is continuously increasing. The logical conclusion from this is that as we go back in time, entropy will diminish and that the lowest level of entropy (order) will be the one at the beginning of the universe. Yet, this is not the result of the small volume of the beginning of the universe, because in the end of the universe even if the universe’s volume decreases, its entropy will not diminish...

According to Roger Penrose, no data known by him in the domain of physics can even get close to the mathematical description of the precise balance of entropy at the beginning of the universe...

So, not only is it impossible for the critical point of entropy at the very beginning of everything to have been attained by coincidence, it is not even possible to write the number expressing the level of precision of this balance by putting zeroes behind 1. It is not possible to explain the level of precision needed at the beginning of the universe, without admitting the presence of an Establisher of order...

There you have it, proof of God's existence.Thank you, Dr. Taslaman.

Addendum: Although posts in this thread need not be strictly on topic, this one is - the heat death of the universe is, without question, the mother of all existential crises.

 

[Tranquility]

Since no one picked up on the entropy question, decided to look into by searching: +entropy; +"big bang"; god's fingerprint....
Addendum: Although posts in this thread need not be strictly on topic, this one is - the heat death of the universe is, without question, the mother of all existential crises.

https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

Never thought it was an original question, but at least now we're getting somewhere, if only outside our own bubbles.

@TiSteamo, by "run for office" meant simply campaign to be elected prime minister, for example.

What better occasion to share the first-ever image of a black hole.

"Nor do scientists know what ultimately happens to whatever falls into a black hole, nor what forces reign at the center, where according to the math we know now the density approaches infinity and smoke pours from God’s computer."

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

More grooviness from Dr. Taslaman. Same essay as above. (Don't you love vaping and reading something cool?)

With a conception similar to Leibniz’s “preestablished harmony”, an attempt may be made to shape a view of miracles that does not violate natural laws. According to this view, in the same way that a billiards player will plan what he is going to do after five-ten plays, God may have calculated at the beginning of the universe the place and time of miracles, and, from the very beginning, set future miracles within the framework of natural laws.

If you look at them with attention, you will notice that all the above-mentioned objections against–and arguments in favour of–miracles were done assuming a priori that the laws of classical physics had an absolute nature. However, it has been understood that the entropy law and the most basic natural laws, function in a probabilistic way, in addition to a deterministic causality. According to this, probable events, like the one we mentioned at the beginning of this article of all the air collecting over the Atlantic Ocean, are not to be taken into consideration, not because they are against scientific laws or absolutely impossible, but because their probability of happening is very low. However the probability will be low only if the various probabilities are realised randomly. The probability of all of a thousand dice thrown randomly to turn out as six is very low, but for someone who in theory can manage dice, the low probabilities are not binding...

Entropy;
Rigid and ironic,
Unbending and probabilistic,
Sine qua non of disorder and order,
Harbinger of the end and of the beginning.
Entropy;
Despair for some, hope for others.

Also, feel free to edit posts to your heart's content. Wanted to add this to the last post, but the time limit had expired. Come to think of it, probably shouldn't have double-posted. Sorry about that, didn't mean to bump.

While we're at it - about likes. Cut down on giving them after learning that's how Cambridge Analytica stole the 2016 US election. Using them here to not seem inhospitable, but don't feel you need to.

 

[TiSteamo]

@TiSteamo, by "run for office" meant simply campaign to be elected prime minister, for example.

Oh, ok! Thanks for the explanation.
I don't think he would run.

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

Basked in the existence of god for a day, but probably the best that can be said for Dr. Taslaman's argument is that he finds the idea of an intelligent creator less astonishing than accepting the required fine tuning of the universe as a fact. Can't blame him. This "anthropic principle" leads to the multiverse idea, which is also pretty astonishing and annoyingly as unfalsifiable as the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Pass the sauce, please.

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

Maybe it doesn't matter much whether our improbable universe is the work of a creator/designer or is simply among the least likely of an infinitude of universes. In either case, we must step outside our own universe to make sense of it, into a realm about which we may be unable to ever know more than its theorized existence. Taken to their logical conclusions, theism and atheism amount to much the same thing from our perspective.

Is Game of Thrones the key to our survival?

Why We Need ‘Game of Thrones’
The epic fantasy series is more than just escape. It is a way of imagining our way to the future.

By Annalee Newitz
Ms. Newitz is a science journalist and novelist.

If we think of fantasy as a way to escape from a dark fate, “Game of Thrones” is a skeleton key.

...pseudo-historical stories are, oddly, the keys to thinking about what comes next for planet earth. Will our fortified border walls be all that remains after climate disaster? Or will we finally put aside political rivalries to save ourselves?

...Like other medieval tales, “Game of Thrones” is not a precise allegory. Instead, it slakes our thirst for narratives that remind us that humanity will have a distant future, in whatever form it takes. We are building it right now.

 

[Tranquility]

Maybe it doesn't matter much whether our improbable universe is the work of a creator/designer or is simply among the least likely of an infinitude of universes.

It doesn't matter much if the universe is a creation or a happenstance?

Would it matter if the Creator had a purpose for his creation?

Edit:
All said with knowledge "happenstance" could mean any of a number of things that does not need a plan.

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

It doesn't matter much if the universe is a creation or a happenstance?

Would it matter if the Creator had a purpose for his creation?

Even if a creator fine tuned all of the formulae and physical constants that make life possible in a one-and-only universe, that purpose may have nothing to do with life in general or us in particular. It's still a big universe, in all four dimensions.

Catching up on cosmology has brought some peace-of-mind. Entropy is a legitimate question, but it's scientific "solution", at present, is no more satisfying than imagining a creator. In a way, that vindicates theism, even if it fails to support it.

That Asimov story reminded me of Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun. Ever read?

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

Surprised so little interest in the end of days.

Theism vs. atheism solved (currently a draw). That's something.

On a horrific road trip deep in the heart of Trump country, heard an existential crisis trifecta on NPR's Fresh Air - an interview with Bill McKibben, author of Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out? (Link takes you to the interview.) He tackles not only his go to crisis, climate change, but also artificial intelligence and genetic engineering of humans!

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

A frequently overlooked existential threat - travel.

If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

By Andy Newman

The glaciers are melting, the coral reefs are dying, Miami Beach is slowly going under.

Quick, says a voice in your head, go see them before they disappear! You are evil, says another voice. For you are hastening their destruction.

To a lot of people who like to travel, these are morally bewildering times. Something that seemed like pure escape and adventure has become double-edged, harmful, the epitome of selfish consumption. Going someplace far away, we now know, is the biggest single action a private citizen can take to worsen climate change. One seat on a flight from New York to Los Angeles effectively adds months worth of human-generated carbon emissions to the atmosphere...

 

[Tranquility]

A frequently overlooked existential threat - travel.

The main argument against the seriousness of those who claim the world is ending because of CO2 gets to this hypocrisy. Some use a phrase along the lines of "I'll believe there is a crisis when those who are telling me there is a crisis act like it."

When a star flies an entourage to Cannes to watch a movie and then tells me my carbon footprint is too large, I'm not that convinced.

Maybe we need a committee to tell us what travel is worth the carbon.

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

"Quick, says a voice in your head, go see them before they disappear!"

A coworker, who should know better, recently used this argument to justify a vacation in the Galapagos. In this case, the lengthy travel required clearly contributes to precisely the disappearance motivating it. About as hypocritical as it gets.

She also keeps pets, using the excuse of benefiting the particular animals rescued. She went on to complain of the enormous cost of pet-sitters every time she travels, which is frequent. Wouldn't this money be better spent to support spaying and neutering? She also noted that it's not as bad as having children.

If even the relatively enlightened among us behave this way, what hope is there for the rest?

A friend once described his veg proselytizing method. He would ask: what's the one thing you just don't think you can give up? Whatever the answer (usually bacon), he'd say: fine, keep eating it - just give up everything else.

Maybe we all need to keep one thing that we just can't excuse. What's yours (besides cannabis, of course)?

 

[Tranquility]

Maybe we all need to keep one thing that we just can't excuse. What's yours (besides cannabis, of course)?

EVERYTHING can be "excused", you just need the proper argument in front of the right people. HOW could anyone justify the travel? All you have to do is read the comments to the article. One of them, in part (emphasis mine):

The wife and I recently returned to the US from five years living in Spain. During our stay there, we visited 24 countries and over 125 cities/towns/villages and took two cruises. We had a blast and we’re going to do it all again in a few years. We travel with a clear conscience because we always offset our travel by privately funding abortions in sub-Saharan Africa. That type of offset does double duty because it allows us to prevent 500 or so people from exhaling forever and saves the landscape from deforestation caused by poor people looking for cooking fuel. Which reminds me, we usually plant a couple of trees, too, just in case one of the a intended abortees slipped under the radar. This summer we’re trying an entirely new offset scheme. We’re going polar bear hunting in Alaska in the hope our efforts will prevent the bears we harvest from starving and also leave more habitat for the bears that we might have missed. We also count as part of our offset the travel that Althouse didn’t take during the year, so we’ve got that going for us too. Which is nice.
​

/S?

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

EVERYTHING can be "excused", you just need the proper argument in front of the right people. HOW could anyone justify the travel? All you have to do is read the comments to the article. One of them, in part (emphasis mine):

More seriously, the author of the article discusses purchasing carbon offsets, which seems reasonable. Even if you can't be sure the offsets are helpful, it makes travel even more expensive (as it should be), reducing the amount of travel one can do.

Long ago, proposed a meat offset scheme to a girlfriend who was considering moving in. If she wanted to keep meat in the fridge, she could make a donation to an org that promotes veganism. We just broke up instead.

Travel presents a catch similar to keeping pets. If we don't do it, how will anyone come to appreciate the world enough to want to save it?

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

An unexpected existential threat - the truth! Brings to mind the aliens in Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five.

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation? Let’s Not Find Out
Experimental findings will be either boring or extremely dangerous.

By Preston Greene

... if our universe has been created by an advanced civilization for research purposes, then it is reasonable to assume that it is crucial to the researchers that we don’t find out that we’re in a simulation. If we were to prove that we live inside a simulation, this could cause our creators to terminate the simulation — to destroy our world...

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

About to post to the Greta Thunberg thread, but it was mercifully closed by the mods. This thread began with the intention of creating a safe space for wide-ranging discussion of sensitive topics, so maybe it's time for a revival.

This thoughtful piece from NYT's "The Stone" raises an idea that seems to be gaining some currency, especially in the midst of a growing pandemic: maybe deep down we long for a return to authoritarianism, because we know it will be needed in a world confronting constant, multiple crises. After all, can you imagine the US closing off a state or erecting a hospital in ten days? And not just in the current administration. Of course, we're deeply divided about the kind of authoritarianism and whose liberty should be restricted.

Where are the philosopher-kings when you need them?

Our ‘Pursuit of Happiness’ Is Killing the Planet

By James Traub
March 6, 2020

But what if you were also told that you had to eliminate most or all of the red meat from your diet? What if Greta Thunberg persuades President Sanders that we need to ration jet travel? At some point you’ll begin to think that the increasing globalization of bad things like climate change and infectious diseases is threatening liberal society.

...What would Mill have said if England had had then, as it does now, a public health system in which everyone shared the cost of treatment for alcoholism? What would he have said about smoking if he knew about the effects of secondhand smoke? Indeed, secondhand smoke is rapidly becoming a metaphor for our time.

...Constant wrote that the democrats of Greece and Rome, like the revolutionaries of his own day, “admitted as compatible with this collective freedom the complete subjection of the individual to the authority of the community.” By contrast, Constant wrote, “the aim of the moderns is the enjoyment of security in private pleasures, and they call liberty the guarantees accorded by institutions to those pleasures.”

...Liberal societies, in short, have always faced the problem of secondhand smoke, but what once was exceptional has now become endemic. One man’s meat is another man’s poison, as F.D.R. put it, more prescient than he knew.

 

[TiSteamo]

You can't ask the problem to be the solution ...

 

[Deleted Member 1643]

Hi @TiSteamo, how are you coping with Italy's restrictions? Are you in Lombardy?

 

[TiSteamo]

No, I'm not in Lombardy ... I try to live normally obviously respecting the elementary hygiene rules ...
I believe that fear and ignorance are also viruses to be fighted..