The Invisible Hypercomputer
-
the threadstarter is very smart
-
reminds me of a childhood story named "the emperor's new clothes" or something, anyone remember that story?
-
Science is the study and pursue of understanding the natural world. Religion and Science should never conflict in the sense that religion is out of the picture when it comes to reasoning the natural world.
Truth be told, science is of course better in explaining the natural world as compared to religious intepretation. But the disadvantage(also the advantage for its accuracy and reliability) to science is it is heavily dependable on the scientific method, a method of rigid testing variables over and over again, hence the subject of interest has to be testable. But how does science test the creation of the universe?
It is a general consensus that big bang theory is the most reasonably logical explanation when it comes to creation of the universe, due to the 2nd thermodynamic law stating that increased of entropy due to every energy transfer/exchange. However, what comes before the big bang then?
Something science can never ever explain because it goes beyond our natural world and if science tries to explain that, it wouldn't be science, it would be a religion which requires faith as well.
In fact, believing that big bang theory is a faith because we can't readily test it. It is merely a deductive reasoning assuming that the thermodynamic laws is applicable universally. If that is the case, believer of science who hugs to the big bang theory is also practising some form of faith - nothing less than what a religious follower would do. -
The answer is 42.
-
Nobody is smart... there are only fools who know that they are fools, and fools who think that they are smart.Originally posted by Classyfied:the threadstarter is very smart 
-
i dont get it....
-
much as i hate to say this.. but i look forward to the day seeing cystaire's arrogance being deflated in the presence of God.
-
I thought we've been through this before.Originally posted by VivId CrItiQuE:much as i hate to say this.. but i look forward to the day seeing cystaire's arrogance being deflated in the presence of God.
I believe in God. The Invisible Hypercomputer is a fictitious story.
Why do you persist in misunderstanding me?
Perhaps you have not heard this story before (modified by me):
One day there was a severe flood. A man was caught on the roof waiting for rescue.
A police officer on a rubber dinghy came by.
"Sir, I'm here to rescue you"
"No my friend, I believe in God. He will rescue me."
So the police officer left and the man waited for hours. By then the water has risen to his waist.
A navy diver appeared on a speedboat.
"Sir, I'm here to rescue you"
"No my friend, I believe in God. He will rescue me."
So the navy diver left and the man waited for hours. By then the water has risen to his neck.
A coast guard officer appeared on a helicopter.
"Sir, I'm here to rescue you"
"No my friend, I believe in God. He will rescue me."
So the coast guard officer left.
The man drowns.
When he goes to heaven he asks God "Why didn't you rescue me? I was faithful and waited for hours!"
God said "I tried to rescue you THREE TIMES!"
The man was unconvinced. He asks "Why couldn't you rescue me DIRECTLY without using dinghies or boats or helicopters?"
God simply rolled his eyes like this -
But what was the question?Originally posted by shandower:The answer is 42.
Thanks for noticing the reference.
*Gives a cookie*
-
I absolutely agree with you!Originally posted by Beyond Religion:Nobody is smart... there are only fools who know that they are fools, and fools who think that they are smart. -
Splendid observation. Today we realize that the natural world is more complex and fascinating than originally believed.Originally posted by AugoeideS:Science is the study and pursue of understanding the natural world. Religion and Science should never conflict in the sense that religion is out of the picture when it comes to reasoning the natural world.
You assume that the natural world has a clearly defined limit after which science is inapplicable. In reality it is not certain where the natural world "ends" and where the supernatural begins. Lightning and infectious plagues used to be attributed to gods. The realm of the explainable expands everyday.
You are right that some aspects of modern scientific knowledge is very speculative. But the strength (and concurrent weakness) of science is that its aware of where it is stretched thin. What happens before Planck Time? What are the rules of physics within the event horizon of black hole? Physicists dare to admit they don't know, and can only speculate.Originally posted by AugoeideS:Truth be told, science is of course better in explaining the natural world as compared to religious intepretation. But the disadvantage(also the advantage for its accuracy and reliability) to science is it is heavily dependable on the scientific method, a method of rigid testing variables over and over again, hence the subject of interest has to be testable. But how does science test the creation of the universe?
It is a general consensus that big bang theory is the most reasonably logical explanation when it comes to creation of the universe, due to the 2nd thermodynamic law stating that increased of entropy due to every energy transfer/exchange. However, what comes before the big bang then?
Other people believe speculations are more reliable than evidence-based. This I leave to your personal preference.
There are "believers" of science, but most scientists are not. They are well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their techniques and models. The current worldview we have is assembled from a vast array of approaches and evidence. The Big Bang theory is well supported by data, better than alternative models like the steady state theory.Originally posted by AugoeideS:Something science can never ever explain because it goes beyond our natural world and if science tries to explain that, it wouldn't be science, it would be a religion which requires faith as well.
In fact, believing that big bang theory is a faith because we can't readily test it. It is merely a deductive reasoning assuming that the thermodynamic laws is applicable universally. If that is the case, believer of science who hugs to the big bang theory is also practising some form of faith - nothing less than what a religious follower would do.
Of course it is not the absolute truth - a future Einstein-like physicist may propose a even neater theory. But it must explain all existing evidence better than the Big Bang theory in order to supplant it.
Only an evidence-supported theory can displace another evidence-supported theory.
"Belief" in scientific theory does not rely on faith - if someone comes up with an elegant new theory that explains the beginnings of the Universe even better than Big Bang, then most scientists will celebrate this new discovery instead of clinging to the old theory. -
really good 1 , how i wish i can show this to my parents n friends .
-
yawnzzz
+1 -
"Anyhow invented" useless story
-
Um, there wasn't any reference to Deep Thought...
The computer was made of wood and 12 stories tall... Deep Thought was nothing like it. -
it's just a story. if you understand it. good for you. if you don't. no point flaming yes?
-
You're right. Deep Thought has a voice synthesizer, the movie version even has voice-corresponding lights.Originally posted by I need help:Um, there wasn't any reference to Deep Thought...
The computer was made of wood and 12 stories tall... Deep Thought was nothing like it.
But I was thinking that the scale of Deep Thought (movie version) is the same as the Invisible Hypercomputer. -
TS should collate every 'story' he written here and get it published ...
-
I feel so pai-seh.Originally posted by gd4u:TS should collate every 'story' he written here and get it published ... 
Actually my stories only normal-normal. If people find them entertaining then I happy already.