Letters to the Editor
-
Quantum uncertainty
Mike Sulzer wrote:
"Heisenberg's Principle only applies at the quantum level of observation - not the classical, macroscopic level."
Would it not be better to say that at our normal scale of things, Quantum uncertainty is so small that it is swamped out by other kinds of uncertainty. Thus one must make a special effort to observe these quantum effects.
Well, let's get a handle on the magnitudes we're talking about here.
Consider a macroscopic billiard ball with a momentum
p = 1 kg*m/s
Now, find the uncertainty in its position based on the Heisenberg principle:
delta(x) = h/ 2 (pi) (1 kg*m/s)
= (6.625 x 10^34 J*s)/ 2 (3.141) 1(kg*m/s)
delta (x) = 1.055 x 10^-34 m
Now, to get a handle on exactly how minuscule that is, bear in mind that even the (yet undiscovered) gravitational waves have wavelengths only on the order of 10^-14 m or so, and this uncertainty in position is TWENTY orders of magnitude LESS.
To me, this suggests a magnitude so minuscule and so much smaller than any competing uncertainties, that it simply "doesn't apply".
In other words, any computed hypothetical uncertainty that is beyond the realm of possible measurement is also beyond the realm of practical application.
-
@droogoy
cool,
that book sounds pretty interesting...I'll be sure to check it out (the development/evolution of theology is a topic I find endlessly fascinating!)
cheers
p.s. sorry for coming across as snide there with my "grade school" comment..but the whole "gospels have different biases" actually was something I learned in Grade 8 before Confirmation - I wasn't trying to be a jerk, even though it came across that way, my apologies.
-
Atheism, morality, meaning?
Thanks for your responses!
“'Self', 'personal', 'own mind', 'the answer is within' ... funnily enough, these are words that appear in the theists' rationalizations just as often as atheists'. It's all a bit 'me', isn't it? Where's the stuff about helping others, teaching people, showing kindness, making the world nicer, being hopeful? Where's the *practical* benefit of religion?”
I agree with you that theism in and of itself has no *practical* benefit. All the physical good done in the world by all religions could just as easily be done by nonbelievers. The reason there is so much me-centric language is that the only benefits of theism are experienced by the believer on a purely personal level. Belief in a higher power gives the theist hope, I can see that atheists can also have hope, but I think theists and atheists perhaps hope for different things. From my understanding atheists hope that the world will become a better place where everyone is happy and healthy and well provided for. I can’t speak for all theists but I reject the notion that such a thing is possible. I think that human nature contains a lot of good, but also that we will always compete with one another, always oppress the poor, always lie, and always have wars. Maybe I lack imagination but I don’t see things getting better for everyone in the future, I see things staying about the same as they always have been. Maybe my life will improve, but if it does it will probably be at someone else’s expense, no net improvement at all.
Ironically, while Dawkins is accused of offering a vision of the universe that's ugly and devoid of so much, his earlier, much less strident book Unweaving the Rainbow is a wonderful hymn to the universe science has revealed. A universe bigger, stranger and far less capricious than one any religion managed to envisage. And materialistic modern science might seem unspiritual ... but it caught your sister's breast cancer, eradicated smallpox, made automobiles safer and cleaner. I can name two dozen massive, paradigm-shifting, world-improving, positive things science has achieved in my lifetime. Theology ... not so much.
You’re singing to the choir on this one. I may be a theist but I’m also a chemist. I agree the beauty of our modern understanding of the unfolding universe and evolving life is far greater than the old static notions. I will question the extent to which science has made the world a better place though. Undeniably science has made our lives longer and healthier but this has brought with it a whole host of problems, most notably population explosion. Every medical advance means that the average age of the population increases, the need for children decreases. Children who were once seen as necessary for the survival of society are increasingly seen as burdensome polluters. Obviously parents still love their children, but they are choosing to have fewer. This was not a choice we had to worry about before science gave us all such long lifespans. For sure science makes life a lot more fun here in the developed world, I love that I can drive my car and go to grad school and all that, but I pay for this fun by having to worry about global warming etc. One could write a convincing argument that science is the forbidden fruit of Eden, it gives you ‘the knowledge to become like god’ (we are already creating artificial life!), but with that knowledge comes responsibility.
Serious question. Let's pick just one - scientists put robots on Mars. What's the equivalent landmark in theology over, say, the last forty years? Something as inspiring, difficult, successful, big-scale and wow-making. It's not a trick question, and if theology is in any way beneficial, it should be the easiest question in the world to answer. What's theology done for us lately?
Putting robots on mars does exactly as much good as theology which is to say almost none.
I don't cheat on my wife because - beyond all that love stuff - I think the world is a better place if people honor vows, don't cheat, don't do things that would hurt others. If religion means less people cheat on their wife, religion's a good thing ... but personally, if human beings really need that, it's a rather dismal vision of human beings.
I don’t think you really answer my question at all. Saying that you do good actions to make the world a better place only leads me to ask: why care, why not make it a worse place? Your actions have almost no impact on the world as a whole, have a great impact on those closest to you, and have an infinite impact on you yourself. Sure if everyone acted honorably the world would be a better place, but by acting honorably yourself the bulk of what you accomplish is making yourself a better person. Why be a better person rather than a worse person? Being better is often difficult and painful. Why bother?