Edgar Allan Poe, Cosmologist 263
David Mazzotta writes "Bet you didn't know Edgar Allen Poe pre-discovered the Big Bang and Black Holes. This article at the NYT discusses the concept of pre-discovery, or theorhetical anticipation of eventual scientific discoveries. Most of these come from forward thinking physicists, but occasionally they come from a morbid, alcoholic, poet."
Never More! (Score:1)
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of someone gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
" 'Tis some visitor," I muttered, "tapping at my chamber door;
Only this, and nothing more."
or as I recited it in 7th grade: (Score:1, Insightful)
Cuz I was reading lots a old books and stuff
I started to sleep but then I heard a tapping,
Kinda like a tapping at my door.
"Mr. Dude it 'Tis!", I grumbled, "Mr. Dude is hitting my door!
Wraaaaiiiiight! Never More!
I was hit in the head by a minivan earlier that year, and I still can't memorize anything. I became considerably better in Physics, Math(I'm the only sophomore in Precal at my school), and most importantly coding (that was the last of my 5 years of crap w/ basic).
Hmmm... (Score:3, Funny)
OB: Link via Google (Score:2, Informative)
Heracleitus? (Score:3, Funny)
Do you think this meant he understood atomic energy?
Or was this just the rap he used to score chicks?
Technical Term? (Score:5, Funny)
Nice... Nice move, NYT. Leave it to someone in the Arts section to write an article discussing physics and science predictions.
Pooh-Poohed?!
Yes it is a technical term (Score:2)
It's a term used in logic, and it's appropriate for the situation. Or would you have prefered a *scientific* techincal term? That makes sense - lots of scientific dribble for the masses to read and try to understand.
F-bacher
Pre-discovery? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, it seems to me that the imagining of something amazing hardly equates to the "discovery" of such a thing.
For example: the guy who dreamed up the concept of a flying car is irrelevant compared to the engineer who actually realizes such a thing.
I guess my point is simply that any fool can dream up wild things while under the influence.
Re:Pre-discovery? (Score:1)
From the article:
"There are lots of things theorists predict on the basis of what's known and what's already been found," Mr. Siegfried explained in a telephone interview. "The distinction with prediscovery is that theorists discover the existence of something observers have never seen. It's one thing to figure out an explanation for the observation. It's another thing altogether to suggest something exists that no one had any idea about beforehand."
Unlike, say, Leonardo da Vinci's sketches of "flying machines" or Jules Verne's descriptions of submarines and televisions decades before such objects were ever made, scientific prediscoveries, as Mr. Siegfried defines them, are not human inventions awaiting technological realization, but rather insights into the nature of reality.
Re:Pre-discovery? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pre-discovery? (Score:3, Interesting)
"as Mr. Siegfried defines them, are not human inventions awaiting technological realization, but rather insights into the nature of reality."
Think about this , when we go to the movies and we know that the movie is going to have aliens & a futuristic theme - why do we go in expecting aliens to look in a particular way (egg shaped heads with long oval eyes) ? flying saucers to be circular ? architecture to be composed of tall towers ? If you think that it is because of the way they have been habitually potrayed in the movies, my question is
"How has there been so much uniformity in such thoughts/imaginations about the future among those who have pictured it that way ?"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pre-discovery? (Score:2)
Did I mention my Grandfather was the first person to be hit in the head by a really big laser?
i hope i wasn't the only one (Score:3, Funny)
quoth the raven " use the mousse.."
Jung and the Collective Unconscious (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems to mean that the entire species acts as a single huge brain, if you like. There needn't be a supernatural explanation for this. It could just be that culture as a whole processes information, the results of this processing turning up in random people's ideas in strange ways. Weird wild stuff...
Re:Jung and the Collective Unconscious (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Jung and the Collective Unconscious (Score:2)
Re: Jung and the Collective Unconscious (Score:5, Insightful)
> This seems to be yet another example of what Jung was saying about the collective unconscious. Over and over in history there seem to be cases of people either prediscovering things, like Poe, without any basis or proof
It is very popular among kooks to count the hits and ignore the misses. What percentage of all "prediscoveries" actually turn out to be true? Is it a reliable method of investigating the facts of nature?
>
The thing about the shoulders of giants, is that they're big enough for lots of people to stand on at the same time. We get lots of simultaneous discoveries because science and technology advance on a chronological wavefront.
Re:Jung and the Collective Unconscious (Score:2)
Re:Jung and the Collective Unconscious (Score:2)
Re:Jung and the Collective Unconscious (Score:2)
What's actually happening here is that the physicists are using metaphors to explain their mathematics that were used in the past by poets. Because the metaphors are part of our common literary inheritance, they are easier for us to understand than other, equally valid metaphors/models representing the same mathematical facts.
Far more interesting to me is Kant's "prediscovery" of the shape of the galaxy, and the idea of other galaxies.
Whatever (Score:1)
Not a big "bang".
Fffft. Whatever one of those is.
Science is a quantitative subject (Score:1)
In his idols footsteps... (Score:5, Funny)
Lovecraft was also an early adopter of continental drift, and it is early adoption, not invention, that we are talking about. The Big Bang did not achieve general acceptance until the 1960s, it is true, however, others besides Poe had proposed similar theories (something about a Cosmic Seed, I recall) before Poe.
In statistical terms - writers are drunken cranks. They are more likely to adopt fringe beliefs before the rest of the population. Some of those fringe beliefs will turn out to be true. The writer will seem prophetic. It's of little significance.
Re:In his idols footsteps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of [the writer's] fringe beliefs will turn out to be true. The writer will seem prophetic. It's of little significance.
One of the most famous examples of this was Gulliver's Travels, wherein Jonathan Swift successfully guessed not only that Mars has two moons, but that they're extremely small and fast-moving. This was a remarkable non-intuitive guess, but it was just a guess. In his annotated version of Gulliver, Isaac Asimov suggested that Swift might have guessed two moons by imagining a supposed numeric progression from Earth (one Moon) to Mars (X moons) to Jupiter (thought from Galileo's time to have four moons). 1, 2, 4... Swift's idea was clever, and by coincidence he got it right. Shrug.
Re:In his idols footsteps... (Score:2)
The bad, nasty short tempered men show up if we start to discuss the shoggoth trapped in the pentagon....
Seriously though, HP Lovecraft has some nifty ideas for his day. For example, the shoggoths were created as servants that could change themselves, long, long ago. They eventually gained intelligence through this self-evolution, turning against their masters. Lovecraft was big on genetic engineering (although he never called it that). One of the races that inhabited Antartica had the ability to change themselves to fit the environment - but eventually forgot how to do it over millions of years and were thus vulnerable to the chilling of Antartica.
Actually, it was considered before Poe was born (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Actually, it was considered before Poe was born (Score:2, Interesting)
Not true. (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Not true. (Score:1)
This is not really a novel argument... (Score:1)
Poe's Death... (Score:5, Interesting)
He is now believed to have died of rabies, contracted from one of his pets months earlier. In fact, the records from the hospital where he died actually said that he had abstained from alcohol for the previous 6 months.
Find out more [umm.edu] about this theory.
Re:Poe's Death... (Score:2)
Alcoholic (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Alcoholic (Score:2, Informative)
Eureka (Score:5, Informative)
However I did find a rather interesting quote from Poe: "Great intellects guess well."
Predictions (Score:2)
I predict that they will break open quarks and find even smaller things inside. Presto. In 200 years, I will be a famous founding father of physics!
Poe and some joke (Score:1)
Quality of argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quality of argument (Score:3, Insightful)
But you won't get credit for that of course (but that is really unfair. Many scientists where relatively wrong but going in the right directions. The followers just exerciced some corrections and expansions that didn't need ore than "extrapolation"...
Indians knew it even earlier.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Also Kanaad had detailed explaination about atoms and related theories.
Re:Indians knew it even earlier.... (Score:2)
Hit rate? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's interesting to look at the authors whose ideas turned out to be valid. Some might still turn out true (H.G. Wells?). Of course in retrospect, we tend to forget the 100's of authors who were merely nuts.
Poe Was Not an Alcoholic! (Score:5, Informative)
And sometimes
Living in Richmond, VA, a city where Poe lived for a large part of his life, I have more than a passing familarity with Poe. I've also done a LOT of research on Poe for a screenplay (a new film production company focusing on digital film production is not only interested in this script, but is seriously negotiating for this script).
One of my former teachers is on the board for the Edgar Allan Poe Museum in Richmond and I have had long conversations and interviews with the current and former heads of the Edgar Allan Poe Museum.
In short, Poe was NOT an alcoholic (believe me, after years of working in treatment programs, I KNOW alcoholics), and there is little or no evidence he used opium, in any form.
There is strong evidence he may have been diabetic, in which case he could have what amounts to an allergic reaction to alcohol (I'm not an M.D., so I don't know all the details here.) He was also a critic and could write scathing reviews of other writers. True, he was found in a bar, went into a coma, and died a few days later. What many people don't know is that he was found in a bar on election day! I don't rember the exact law, or if the bar was a polling place, but for legal reasons, no alcohol was being served in the bar due to it being election day.
Diabetes would explain problems Poe had if he drunk and it would also explain his death -- a diabetic coma.
As for being morbid -- some of his writing was morbid. I suggest reading something like "The Poetic Principle" if you want background on this. Poe had quite a sharp sense of humor (and quite a sharp ego, as well) and was totally enticed by beauty. While I would call a number of his works morbid, I have not found enough in research to say he was morbid.
One last point: I mentioned he was a scathing critic. When he died, one of the writers he had severly criticized (I'm sorry -- I should remember his name off the top of my head, but I can't remember it) feigned friendship with Poe and asked to write the obit and handle other similar details. He used the chance to lambast and destroy Poe's reputation with slander and libel. The effectiveness of his slander can still be seen today, 153 years after Poe's death, when we see an intelligent
Re:Poe Was Not an Alcoholic! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Poe Was Not an Alcoholic! (Score:2)
Re:Poe Was Not an Alcoholic! (Score:2)
Re:Poe Was Not an Alcoholic! (Score:2)
I had completely forgotten about the suicide attempt or anything connected with it. After reading your post about it, I checked my notes. It was in there, without many details, but I had included it (with a note that it was within in 1-2 years before he died).
Funny, I can't believe I had completely forgotten it. But, then again, that's why I have notes on research...
Re:Poe Was Not an Alcoholic! (Score:4, Funny)
You are probably correct sir. Alcoholics go to meetings. But drunks do not.
From a fellow Drunk.
Re:Poe Was Not an Alcoholic! (Score:2)
I hope he celebrated his treachery with a glass of Amontillado!
Re:Poe Was Not an Alcoholic! (Score:2)
life the universe and everything....... (Score:2)
New concept? Not in philosophy... (Score:2)
It's probably safe to say Pythagoras helped all future philosophers (he pre-dated Socrates and Plato) with the idea of pre-discovery. He was also the main force in creating the precursor to what we now think of as scientific thought.
Pythagoras was the first to really grasp that the mind could understand perfections and processes that existed in purity only outside the realm of our senses. There was a certain divinity of number (not his phrase, although some scholars have called it that) to his teachings.
Re:New concept? Not in philosophy... (Score:2)
ober's paradox (Score:2)
It seems to me that a simpler answer is given by a simple converging power series. Some infinite series converge! Light from stars that are farther and farther away are dimmer according to the inverse square law. Just add them up for any portion of the sky and you get a finite number, no? Why make it more complicated than that?
I don't remember learning this in High School (Score:5, Interesting)
Another intereseting story along the same lines is the fact that Cleopatra was a nymphomaniac and once had a horse lowered down on her, and how well that played out in history class when we were discussing her love affair with Rome's Marc Antony.
Remeber the film "Refer Madness"? The one produced by DuPont in an effort to get marijuana made illegal before the senators and representatives realized that it was the same thing as hemp. The same plant grown by George Washington on his farm, and tended to by slaves, and the same one that the US made the film "Grow Hemp for Victory" about during World War II in an effort to get farmers to grow the plant. The US has expnded a great deal of money and effort in an attempt to remove that film from existance but it recently resurfaced. Hemp was made illegal to protect DuPont's recently discovered method of making paper from wood pulp. This is an inferior paper because it turns to dust within about 300 years. We are furtunate that most of the research at the Vatican, including the first copy of the King James Bible, was published on hemp. So was the Declaration of Independance! Why are we not taught the truth.
The bottom line here is that we are adults! If the government and others would treat us as such then we wouldn't view them with such scepticism. Poe, although he was not an astronomer, was an avid reader of astronomy books and spent many an evening staring up at the stars. Why should we look at any of his conclusions as anything less than possible. After all this world is full of people that are not formally trained in an area of expertise making some very insightful discoveries and observations. Yet we are trained to dismiss these things out of hand. This dismissal is often times unjustified.
Remember Gene Roddenbery? He came up with a transporter because the model shots of shuttlecraft landing would have been too expensive to shoot every week. That transporter was accepted into science fiction as just that fiction; yet slashdot is full of article about how one discovery or another is getting us one step closer to that reality. I don't know that transporters will ever be reality but if they do finally invent it we should give the credit to Gene for making us all dream that it could one day become.
Re:I don't remember learning this in High School (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably because it isn't true.
Cleopatra was a nymphomaniac and once had a horse lowered down on her,
Nor is that.
Hemp was made illegal to protect DuPont's recently discovered method of making paper from wood pulp
If by "discovered" you mean they looked up Dahl's 1879 method in an encyclopedia then perhaps.
We are furtunate that most of the research at the Vatican, including the first copy of the King James Bible
I don't think you'll find the first copy of the English Protestant Bible in the Vatican unless they bought it off someone, it certainly is not the result of Vatican research.
TWW
Re:I don't remember learning this in High School (Score:2)
Jouster
Re:I don't remember learning this in High School (Score:2)
Guess what? Einstein's theories included a thing called quantom teleportation. Einstein himself said he didn't believe it, but the math leaded into that direction. And scientists using high energy physics have actually disasembled subatomic particles and reasembled them elsewhere....teleporting or transporting them. The star trek transporter is an infinite degree more complicated than this, but the basic theory has been proven true! Actually building the thing is another matter, very likely never to happen.
Re:I don't remember learning this in High School (Score:2)
Reforming the school system so everyone tells the truth would require a massive overhaul.
In 1st grade I was told "you can't subtact a larger number from a smaller one." Similar necessary inconsitencies show up throughout my (long over) public education.
An alleged misconduct of Poe has little if any bearing on the Raven--just like it's irrelevant to a HS reading of Romeo_and_Juliet if Shakesphere was or was not romantically influenced.
Get into advanced courses, where the basics are done--then it's good to talk about what could or could not be. Until then, just smile and enjoy the class.
Re:I don't remember learning this in High School (Score:3, Informative)
Edwin Abbott (Score:2)
Art & Physics, a whole book on this subject (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone read 'Art and Physics: Parallel Visions in Space, Time and Light' by Leonard Shlain [amazon.com]? That book highlights some similar occurrences to this throughout history, showing parallels between Salvador Dali to Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci to Isaac Newton, and dozens more, examining and comparing pieces of art to scientific discoveries and theories, then going into lots of detail and explaining each side of the equation.
:)
The book shows through the course of history how artists have stumbled upon and understood in art what scientists later theorized and proved in science. It helps shed a light on not only the parallels between art and science but explain the inner workings of each, and treads through history looking at different art movements and explaining where they're coming from as wellExtremely interesting and compelling read, fairly heady at times, but overall quite good and DEFINITELY worth checking out if this subject interests you.
Didn't know about those, but... (Score:2)
(If you happen across this, Mr. Astin, I hope you enjoyed the copy of The Quantum and the Jaguar, and the show was great.)
John Astin's Once Upon a Midnight (Score:2)
Ah Slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm, how are we doing today?
"News": Well, Martin Gardner wrote about Poe's Eureka as cosmology in an article entitled "The Irrelevance Of Everything", reprinted in his excellent The Night Is Large: Collected Essays 1938-1995 [amazon.com]. Maybe it was news 7 years ago...
"For Nerds": Real nerds don't click through links requiring "Free Registration" to get at pulpy science "news" articles. They are also conversant with the work of Martin Gardner.
"Stuff That Matters": Uh, yeah.
Look, fellows, if I want to read the NYT Science section, I'll subscribe to the NYT. Could we please quit recycling it all on /.?
Titanic. (Score:2)
This is off my head of course, but I remember reading somewhere that the Titanic disaster was, to use the article's term, pre-discovered, in 1898 by an American author. She wrote a book called "The Titan" (I think), which was about an 8000 ton ocean liner that was reputedly unsinkable, but crashed into an iceberg in its maiden voyage from England to New York. I believe it was meant to be a sort of commentary on the vanity of the ruling classes then.
It's interesting to note that "Titanic" the movie was released exactly 100 years later.
Olber's Non-Paradoxical Paradox (Score:4, Informative)
Olber said basically that an infinite number of stars should produce an infinite amount of starlight, so why does it get dark at night? Paradox.
Sorry, but no. The brightness of the sky would depend on how much of that infinite starlight has had time to reach the Earth. The fact that the sky isn't infinitely bright right now doesn't mean it won't get that way someday. No paradox. The only paradox is that this is called Olber's Paradox instead of Olber's Idle Musing.
Don't know why Olber's Paradox gets me going, but it always does. Or am I missing something really simple and obvious, and just being a complete jackass about this?
Different levels of infinity (Score:2)
why the sky is dark at night (Score:2, Informative)
>If the universe was infinite, as 19th-century astronomers believed, there should be an infinite number of stars as well, plenty, in other words, to illuminate the sky at all times.
That's somewhat misleading because, although there aren't an infinite number of stars (and other luminant stellar objects), there are enough stars to "illuminate the sky at all times." It's just that the amount of light isn't quite perceptable to humans. There are other (mostly nocternal) animals that can see just fine at night, and with light amplification devices (a.k.a nightvision goggles) so can we. So it's not a matter of it being dark at night, it's just a matter of us not being able to see with that level of light.
Of course there's also the matter of there being a finite number of stars and light that hasn't reached us yet, but that's besides the point.
Re:why the sky is dark at night (Score:3, Informative)
You have infinity to play with. That means even though a given star might only be able to emit one photon into the solid angle that represents the area of our iris, and infinite number of stars would emit and an infinite number of photons into our eyes.
And even if the star is too dim to give us even one photon, there's a small but finite chance that some star in the direction will emit a photon that is captured by our eye. Now multiply that small chance by infinity, and BOOM - and infinite number of photons.
Poe was actually right - he pointed out the simplest solution to Olber's Paradox. But this has been known for some time. (I'm not sure why this is news - I've been teaching my students this factoid for years.)
That's Nothing... (Score:2, Interesting)
- "The tangible world is movement, say the Masters, not a collection of moving objects, but movement itself. There are no objects 'in movements', it is the movement which constitutes the objects which appear to us: they are nothing but movement... This movement is a continued and infinitely rapid succession of flashes of energy (in Tibetan tsal or shoug). All objects perceptible to our senses, all phenomena of whatever kind and whatever aspect they assume, are constituted by a rapid succession of instantaneous events."
There are better examples out there, but the idea that the tangible world is made up of movement, which itself is made up of flashes of energy (particles, let's say) is pretty spot on to have come up with before even Newtonian physics.only so many basic ideas (memes) (Score:2)
Ecclasiates 1.9 (Score:2)
reading that article on Poe reminded me of... (Score:2)
It was like he was from some future time and then went back there and was bored, knew he couldn't tell anyone how or why he was there. So he decided to make the most of it and write and say stuff, get money from it, hang out, womanize, etc etc. but then grew tired of it and decided to drink himself to death.
so a less pleasant story than the Twain one, but that was what it made me think of.
I don't of course really think that is true, but it was what I pondered as I read the article.
Poe was someone that has always piqued my curiosity - I worked on his cipher, eventually breaking it, and I've read all of his works. I grew up near where his haunts were, and just tend to always perk up and listen when things about him come up.
I hope to someday be found face down in a puddle on the side of the road after a long binge of drinking to eventually die of pneumonnia (sp?). that just seems like the way to go if you ask me.
or strippers/whores, X, heroin, and coke.
one of the two.
Where? (Score:1)
Re:A morbid, alcoholic, poet (Score:2)
Being a morbid, alcoholic poet is actually quite cool in certain social circles... especially those who tend to wear lots of black. And eyeliner. Yes, lots and lots of eyeliner.
Re:A morbid, alcoholic, poet (Score:1)
He wrote a lot about the macabre, death and dying -- thus morbid.
He was known to frequently drink to excess, and died drunk in a gutter -- thus an alcoholic.
So what is your point? Timothy was correct in his assertion. Poe WAS a morbid, alcoholic poet!
Re:A morbid, alcoholic, poet (Score:2)
And what's the source? See Poe Was Not An Alcoholic, posted above. This is slander from Griswold's obits where he wanted to destroy Poe's reputation.
Find one solid source in ANY Poe biography that states he drank....You can't, because he didn't.
Re:A morbid, alcoholic, poet (Score:2)
Re:A morbid, alcoholic, poet (Score:2)
Not true. See how lasting a pack of lies can be? Especially when written about a dead man. Rufus Griswold was blasted by some of Poe's criticism, so on Poe's death, faked friendship so he could be Poe's literary executor, then began to slander and libel Poe in his obit. These lies were so effective many people believe them without even thinking about them (including high school lit teachers!). For more info, see my post above -- "Poe Was Not an Alcoholic!"
The plain truth is that he wasn't.
Re:A morbid, alcoholic, poet (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No I didn't and... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're just pointing out an interesting little fact. Good grief, doesn't anyone here take the slightest joy in learning intriguing historical quirks?
Humorless bunch of...
Re:No I didn't and... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No I didn't and... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No I didn't and... (Score:2)
Any good old fashioned economist that is close to the world will be ale to predict better by "feeling" or "sense" than with any model.
Re:Lagrange was first. (Score:2, Interesting)
Didn't background radiation prove the big bang? (Score:1)
Re:None of these are "discoveries". (Score:5, Informative)
Likewise, black holes are just an educated guess at what might be at the centre of galaxies or left behind in the wake of supernovae. For all we know, the absence of light in these areas may well be merely extremely dense clouds of cosmic dust rather than pinpoints of near-infinite gravitational power.
The Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik has been tracking the star S2 near the center of our galaxy since 1992. After measuring 2/3 of the period, they are able to confirm:
1. Black holes exist.
2. There is one at the center of our galaxy.
See http://www.mpe.mpg.de/www_ir/GC/intro.html [mpe.mpg.de]
Excellent work by a very dedicated group!
Regards,
Mike
Re:None of these are "discoveries". (Score:2, Funny)
There is a model of how text entered into this hyprothetical site changes state, through unseen processes called "moderating".
They have detected something that accepts text and causes it to change state based on this hypothetical event called "moderating".
They have concluded this must therefore be "Slashdot".
As "proof" goes, that's fairly feeble.
I am very skeptical about the very existance of this supposed "Slashdot" object, and adhere to the alternate hypothesis that it is in fact thousands of monkeys pounding on typewriters.
Try to prove me wrong. You cannot. There is no scientific proof that "Slashdot" exists, apart from certain observed phenomenon that follow the predicted behavior.
Re:None of these are "discoveries". (Score:4, Informative)
Black holes are not black. matter falling into the singularity give off massive amounts of energy. There have been many observations of energy emitters centered on the space where calculations should show intense enough gravity to be a black hole. Calculations also show they should emit blue light. From the event horizon in nothing escapes but A LOT of energy escapes in the space preceding it.
Plus, extremely dense dust clouds don't really destroy matter and produce the excessive amount of radiation that black holes do, nor do they have the gravitational effects on other objects on space that a black hole does.
Just curious, but how much astronomy do you actually know? there is quite a bit more substance to back it up than The Cast of Amontilado.
Re:None of these are "discoveries". (Score:2)
By your definition.. (Score:2)
The article is ABOUT people who dreamed something up and it turned out to seem relatively true; they in no way tried to "discover" anything or state it as fact.
Re:None of these are "discoveries". (Score:2)
Most scientist that I know do not say that their faviorte theories about how the universe work "must be true". They are intelligent people aware of the history of science and they know that many theories have been replaced by others that more closely conform to observed reality. With the current evidence they have formulated theories about the creation of the universe. This is a good and intelligent endevour. There are competing theories about the creation and nature of the universe. This is also a good thing, and a properly scientific thing. There is the MOND theory that explains galactic rotation without dark matter. There are many models for the inflation that probably occurred at the big bang.
To say none of these theories are "discoveries" is correct. They are theories. The discoveries are such things as the cosmic background ratiation that seems to originate from a big bang. It is the job of the scientist to interpret empirical observations into explanations of how the universe works.
I gave up my belief in God when I relized that the only reason I believed in him was that I wanted to believe in him. I will not believe in him again until I have an objective reason to do so. Let's apply Occam's razor the the theory that God created the universe. At first look it is the simplist theory. It can be stated in one sentence, "God created the universe". However, it doesn't end there. We (as scientists) have an obligation to find a theory that explains God. How is it possible that an omnicient, omnipotent being happens to exist? While extremely pleasant to believe in such a being, the likelyhood of such a complex entity "just happening to exist" is extremely unlikely as well.
Re:None of these are "discoveries". (Score:2)
Because if he doesn't (and it sure looks like
that right now), we (or some other cilivision)
will slowly learn everything and slowly because
ultimately powerful, and either become or build
one. I just really hope they don't build/become the sort of god that thinks its cool to fly planes into buildings. Maybe it/they could bring us all back from the dead, or maybe it/they'll just have to run a copy everything in simulation.
Maybe we're already in a simulation it/they is running, or perphaps we're both in a simulation and not in a simulation at the same time (a'la schroedingers cat).
In the meantime i'm signed up for cryonic storage
because there's a lot of work, learning (and play) to be done along the way.
Thats what i believe anyway, wierd huh, but i've
got all my bases covered philosophically.
Re:None of these are "discoveries". (Score:2)
There will be no more magic. Things behave "this" way. Reality is "this" construct that works this way. So fucking what??? That is NOT ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS. And our last source of answers, our last hope of "solving -not-for-god" will be depleted.
Time to be brothers. Untill then, let there be war and despair...
Re:None of these are "discoveries". (Score:2)
can't deep down bear to consider the possible that
god doesn't exist because its to frightning and
horible, so some scientists can't bear to have
here ontologies pull down, it can take years of
evidence to change such peoples minds, and something science just has to wait for the next
generation thats grown up with the new idea and
can except it. For example as the article said general relavity predicted the big bang and black holes but it was years before people really took these ideas seriously.
Re:None of these are "discoveries". (Score:2, Insightful)
Poe as a Geek (Score:2)
Re:he had one thing wrong (Score:2)
or Raimanian Geometry to let him consider space as fixable surface that could expand or contract, stuck in Euclids world we had no choice but to consider a center.