Religion in Science-Fiction?

[ErikModi]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I don't actually think there was any such thing as an "original" timeline. Or more accurately, the "original" timeline, in which Sinclair did not take B4 back in time and become Valen, is the "alternate" timeline in which the Shadows emerge much stronger and destroy Babylon 5 in the middle of Season 3. The timeline of Babylon 5 always takes into account Sinclair/Valen, Babylon 4, et. al. Admittedly, this doesn't clear up anything about the Triluminary.

 

Another facet of Babylon 5's treatment of religion: a monastic order which takes up residence on Babylon 5 for the express purpose of learning about other alien races' beliefs and religions, or as they put it, "to learn all the names of God." In their view, God exists everywhere, and has touched all races, and thus everyone knows something about God. By learning about and compiling all that information, they believe they can come closer to knowing the truth, the REAL truth, of God.

 

A most wise and enlightened perspective, in my opinion.

[Mister E]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Aye' date=' which is why I'd like to see a brief overview of what the virgin timeline looked like before the tampering.[/quote']

 

That reminds me of Newton's conception that, if one could view the complete state of the universe's first moment, then you can (or at least ought to be able to) extrapolate all of the universe's future states.

 

Then came Hume's Guillotine.

 

Finally, according to Locke, there is no logical connection between any particular cause & any particular effect, which is a notion that jives well with non-Newtonian physics.

 

I don't actually think there was any such thing as an "original" timeline. Or more accurately, the "original" timeline, in which Sinclair did not take B4 back in time and become Valen, is the "alternate" timeline in which the Shadows emerge much stronger and destroy Babylon 5 in the middle of Season 3. The timeline of Babylon 5 always takes into account Sinclair/Valen, Babylon 4, et. al. Admittedly, this doesn't clear up anything about the Triluminary.

 

Another facet of Babylon 5's treatment of religion: a monastic order which takes up residence on Babylon 5 for the express purpose of learning about other alien races' beliefs and religions, or as they put it, "to learn all the names of God." In their view, God exists everywhere, and has touched all races, and thus everyone knows something about God. By learning about and compiling all that information, they believe they can come closer to knowing the truth, the REAL truth, of God.

 

A most wise and enlightened perspective, in my opinion.

 

Which remind me of the Omega Point which is basically the notion that the universe is a critical mass of information.

 

But then the Omega Point theory kind of exploded when we realized that there wasn't going to be a Big Crunch to allow everything to come together for a good look at totality... which wouldn't do any good anyhow (again) according to Locke.

 

 

~ Mister E ("Sacrifice the Virgin Universe!")

 

[edit]:

 

Clark technology pwns absolute ideal Hegelianism.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

That reminds me of Newton's conception that, if one could view the complete state of the universe's first moment, then you can (or at least ought to be able to) extrapolate all of the universe's future states.

 

And we now know this to be false--things like radioactive decay are probabilistic, not deterministic. While we can make excellent statistical predictions about the decay of a large population of radioactive atoms, there is absolutely no way to predict when a single atom will decay (although we can determine the probability of its decaying in any given length of time). Furthermore, there is no "cause" or triggering event for the decay. The atom sits there for a while, and then suddenly it decays. Or doesn't.

 

As uncomfortable as the idea might be, God does play dice with the universe.

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

And we now know this to be false--things like radioactive decay are probabilistic, not deterministic. While we can make excellent statistical predictions about the decay of a large population of radioactive atoms, there is absolutely no way to predict when a single atom will decay (although we can determine the probability of its decaying in any given length of time). Furthermore, there is no "cause" or triggering event for the decay. The atom sits there for a while, and then suddenly it decays. Or doesn't.

 

As uncomfortable as the idea might be, God does play dice with the universe.

Wrong. Our understanding of quantum physics (inlcuding nuclear decay) is probabilistic, because we cannot oberserve them.

 

That is why it says "complete state", wich includes the quantum states (and whatever will be determining them).

[ErikModi]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Some clarification on the Triluminary, gleaned from the Season 4 Episode Atonement:

 

Delenn says that Sinclair got "the Triluminary" from Epsilon 3, the Great Machine built thousands of years ago by advanced alien race "for the future."

Dukat tells Delenn that the Triluminaries "come to us from the distant past, but it is also said they come to us from a time in our future."

 

Thus, it seems to me that the Triluminaries are built by Epsilon 3, then given to Sinclair to take back in time and give the Minbari. They are conserved in the future because the ones that are built in the current time are sent back to become the ones that Delenn and the Minbari possess in the current time. As such, there are only six Triluminaries in existence from the time Epislon 3 finishes building them to the time Sinclair takes them back in time.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Wrong. Our understanding of quantum physics (inlcuding nuclear decay) is probabilistic, because we cannot oberserve them.

 

That is why it says "complete state", wich includes the quantum states (and whatever will be determining them).

 

Hmm, I could be wrong, of course, but that doesn't match my current and admittedly limited understanding of quantum physics. Could you cite some references?

[Manic Typist]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Wrong. Our understanding of quantum physics (inlcuding nuclear decay) is probabilistic, because we cannot oberserve them.

 

That is why it says "complete state", wich includes the quantum states (and whatever will be determining them).

 

.....didn't he say probabilistic?

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Hmm' date=' I could be wrong, of course, but that doesn't match my current and admittedly limited understanding of quantum physics. Could you cite some references?[/quote']

Quatum physics is as linear as "normal" physics. The problem is that we cannot oberve quantums, so we can never know the state of a system and thus cannot predict it a single system precisly. But once we have big numbers of systems (say, all the atoms in a mass of about 1 kg) even with 50% chance of decay over timeframe X we can make very acurate predictions for the whole mass.

That is why we only have values like "half-life time" or can only say "it has a 50% chance to be a chertain state after X amoutn of time".

50% deacy does not means exaclty 50.0000000000% decay. It means "something so close to 50%, we don't need to worry about the details because we couldn't count it more precisely anyway."

 

And just becaue we cannot obersve the exact quantum status of he universe (or even a single atom), does not means nobody can oberserve it or will never be able to observe it.

[Lucius]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Hmm' date=' I could be wrong, of course, but that doesn't match my current and admittedly limited understanding of quantum physics. Could you cite some references?[/quote']

 

Nor mine.

 

Although I admit I'm not sure how one could distinguish by experiment or observation between an absolutely predestined universe that appears chance driven because of unknown and unobservable factors, and a random universe in which, even if one hypothetically had perfect and complete knowledge of the present moment, the future would not be 100% predictable due to possible nondeterministic events that are not 100% contingent on temporally prior states.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary asks if the Universe plays dice with God?

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

The palindromedary asks if the Universe plays dice with God?

A dice is actually a good example for quantum physics.

 

When you know excalty the starting position, the force applied, where wich side is, and the properties of the surface involved you can calculate the result of any roll, the same way you can calculate the path of a projectile.

Yet, wen do not know all these factors in sufficient detail/resolution to make such a prediction, and so "every result is equally common". And in fact, if you make enough dice rolls you would get very close to the prediction. The more you make, the closer you get.

 

In a way quantum physics is someone rolling the dice - and we have no idea about the force, the surface or even how many sides the dice has. That is why our understanding of quantum physics stops a propability calculations. But Quantum physics still follow determined rules.

[dmjalund]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Quatum physics is as linear as "normal" physics. The problem is that we cannot oberve quantums, so we can never know the state of a system and thus cannot predict it a single system precisly. But once we have big numbers of systems (say, all the atoms in a mass of about 1 kg) even with 50% chance of decay over timeframe X we can make very acurate predictions for the whole mass.

That is why we only have values like "half-life time" or can only say "it has a 50% chance to be a chertain state after X amoutn of time".

50% deacy does not means exaclty 50.0000000000% decay. It means "something so close to 50%, we don't need to worry about the details because we couldn't count it more precisely anyway."

 

And just becaue we cannot obersve the exact quantum status of he universe (or even a single atom), does not means nobody can oberserve it or will never be able to observe it.

Not True

 

There have been many attempts to treat quantum physicas as a "hidden variables" theory, but they all come up agains the hurdle that the variable we need to know DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST until they are measured.

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Not True

 

There have been many attempts to treat quantum physicas as a "hidden variables" theory, but they all come up agains the hurdle that the variable we need to know DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST until they are measured.

It exist.

The unit of measurement might not exist. A way to measure might not exist. But if you are by a with a lightning bolt the fact that there is nobody there to measure the flow of electrons in volts and amperes, doesn't stops them from killing you.

It didn't stopped it from killing people before Volta and Ampere determiend the units.

 

There is neither a unit of measurement or a way to measure quantums. Doesn't prevents them from doing what they do, as evidenced by the existence of this universe and the decay of unstable isotopes.

[dmjalund]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

It exist.

The unit of measurement might not exist. A way to measure might not exist. But if you are by a with a lightning bolt the fact that there is nobody there to measure the flow of electrons in volts and amperes, doesn't stops them from killing you.

It didn't stopped it from killing people before Volta and Ampere determiend the units.

 

There is neither a unit of measurement or a way to measure quantums. Doesn't prevents them from doing what they do, as evidenced by the existence of this universe and the decay of unstable isotopes.

the non-existence isn't philisophical, it's mathematical!

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

the non-existence isn't philisophical' date=' it's mathematical![/quote']

So as long as we didn't knew about atoms, and the mass defect, and E=mc² neitehr existed? Funny, the sun still burned all that time and the star systems from whose debris it formed also burned a long time before that.

 

Just because we don't know the rules behind quantum physics, does not means there aren't any. In fact we are investing a lot of time and resource to find them out.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

If we understood the "rules", could we use them to manipulate things at a quantum level, to get desired outcomes? If there were a being intelligent enough to intuitively understand the laws of reality at a quantum level, could they possibly manipulate things to get desired outcomes, or even "miracles"? How would we distinguish such a being from "G*d"?

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

If we understood the "rules"' date=' could we use them to manipulate things at a quantum level, to get desired outcomes? If there were a being intelligent enough to intuitively understand the laws of reality at a quantum level, could they possibly manipulate things to get desired outcomes, or even "miracles"? How would we distinguish such a being from "G*d"?[/quote']

From that fact that the manipulator is defined and understandable. Actually he get's even easier to understand, once we know how quantum physics works.

 

It's is similar with genetics. While those who tried to create life/manipulate life/clone in literature where often considered "playing god", now that we start beign able to actually do such thigns, it's not the domain of god anymore. It's just plain realistic science, not playing god.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

From that fact that the manipulator is defined and understandable. Actually he get's even easier to understand, once we know how quantum physics works.

 

It's is similar with genetics. While those who tried to create life/manipulate life/clone in literature where often considered "playing god", now that we start beign able to actually do such thigns, it's not the domain of god anymore. It's just plain realistic science, not playing god.

 

I don't know that I agree with that necessarily. That assumes that one of the immutable/unchangeable qualities of God is that he/it is rationally incomprehensible. But I think we tend to associate God's abilities--to affect nature, create life, etc.--as more a part of such a being. If we as humans become capable of such things, then definitionally, we develop "godlike powers". Arguably we've already crossed that threshold, with the advent of nuclear weapons/nuclear power. When we can manipulate the fabric of reality itself, create new lifeforms and artificial intelligence, perhaps even stop the aging process, who is to say we're not on the cusp of some form of divinity?

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I don't know that I agree with that necessarily. That assumes that one of the immutable/unchangeable qualities of God is that he/it is rationally incomprehensible. But I think we tend to associate God's abilities--to affect nature' date=' create life, etc.--as more a part of such a being. If we as humans become capable of such things, then definitionally, we develop "godlike powers". Arguably we've already crossed that threshold, with the advent of nuclear weapons/nuclear power. When we can manipulate the fabric of reality itself, create new lifeforms and artificial intelligence, perhaps even stop the aging process, who is to say we're not on the cusp of some form of divinity?[/quote']

We started when we tamed the fire. Maybe even before, when creating specialised tools (rather than using ones found in nature).

Also, we can't become gods with getting more knowledge. We only get smarter humans, god will always "know more" and "be beyond understanding".

[megaplayboy]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

We started when we tamed the fire. Maybe even before, when creating specialised tools (rather than using ones found in nature).

Also, we can't become gods with getting more knowledge. We only get smarter humans, god will always "know more" and "be beyond understanding".

 

Well, maybe it's something we don't really become until we complete the last step on the long staircase up to it.

[dmjalund]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

I want you to understand exactly how odd quantum physics is. To do this I will bring our attention to the double slit experiment.

 

For those unfamiliar with this experiment. I will summarize.

 

The double slit experiment, is have a small light source emmiting at a single frequency light up a white vertical surface (wall, pirce of paper, whatever)

get a piece of cardboard (any colour) with two slits in it, and put it between the light source and the surface.

if you do it right, you will see a fringe affect as the light interferes with itself as it seems to go through BOTH slits and hits the surface.

 

However, people who have more sophisticated equipment do and have gone further.

 

They have used a light source so dim, that only one photon goes through the slits at a time. (when you count up all the photons) The fringe effect STILL occurs. indicating that in all senses, the single photon went through BOTH slits.

 

but this is not the STRANGEST part,

 

when you consider a fringe that it is not near the midde, either further to the left or right. If you do the math, you will see that the number of wavelength distance from one slit is more than the other. But as a photon, it is going at the fixed speed of c (speed of light).

 

hence not only has the photon gone throug more than one slit at once, it has travelled two different distances to end up at a fixed time and location.

 

This means that there are TWO DIFFERENT VALUES for when the photon was emmited.

[Mister E]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

The end of science is a myth about a future when science is dead (by technology). It is to science what the holy grail is to questing.

 

[edit]:

In vocabulary terms, what is The End of SS: "Science"?

 

 

Hmm. Does that qualify as "Language: Metagame"?

 

Are you using Telepathy on me?

[Zeropoint]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

But Quantum physics still follow determined rules.

 

Do you have a source for this, other than a personal dislike of a universe with random elements?

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Do you have a source for this' date=' other than a personal dislike of a universe with random elements?[/quote']

Do you have any source for random rules behind quantum physics*, aside from a distaste for a pre-determined universe (and thus your actiosn being predictable)?

 

 

*Not our understandign being stoachstic at best (We believed lightning to be the work of an not understandable god, before we learned about how they formed).

[Lucius]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Do you have any source for random rules behind quantum physics*

 

Niels Bohr. John Bell. Just to name two.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I could ask the palindromedary

[Christopher]

Re: Religion in Science-Fiction?

 

Niels Bohr. John Bell. Just to name two.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

I could ask the palindromedary

Pleas quote where they say: "There are no logically understandable rules biehind X"

Because I still think it is: "We don't know the rule behind X, so all we can say is a propability/approximation - wich does not means there is no Rule behind X."