Fwd: Atropos...

-----Original Message-----
From: b <rrdd3939@aol.com>
To: rrdd3939 <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Dec 18, 2012 9:18 pm
Subject: Atropos...

 

"Antropos" followed by NEW NEW Version of "Preface/Epilog"

A Message from Urania: "My astronomy posts follow the philosophical

discussion of God/Mind-Body Problem/Religious and scientific floors.

Please check out my stuff...

 

Wait! Here's one for the road...

                                          ATROPOS

                                  by Citizen Journalist

The legend of Galileo...He was in the Cathedral of Pisa (the

cathedral's famous tower is nearby) and a candle in a

lamp hanging from the ceiling had just been lit. He watched it

swing. He timed it by measuring his pulse. He realized that

initially it had made a long arc. The arc got shorter and shorter.

Low and behold: It took the same length of time to make a full

swing back and forth for the long arc as it had for the short arc.

He discovered the principle of the pendulum in the 17th century.

Mechanical clocks had been around since the 13th century.

His discovery immediately resulted in the creation of more accurate

clocks --- such is genius.

    It became known as Galileo's lamp and is pointed out by tour

guides. There is one small problem: this particular lamp wasn't

installed until after Galileo's death.

   CJ: "I see by the old clock on the wall that my time is up."

 

 

 

 

NEW NEW below...

                                 
(New EXPANDED Version: Now with a SHOCKING Ending!!!)

                            Preface/Epilog: Save the Phenomena

                         by Richard DePerio and Citizen Journalist

                           Expanded by Richard DePersio

  (You can read from "Is There a God/Urania Presents/Plato's Man-

    in-the-Cave Series to Here or Opt to Read from Here to There)

Strange Bedfellows: RD is his own species of deist (same genus)

and a proud member of "Alliance Defending Freedom" which fights to

protect Amendment One in the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution.

        At the very instant of the BIG Bang, God determined the laws of

physics with their constants. Billions of years later, primitive DNA

evolved which was able to replicate. It was in a state of limbo between

 being living and non-living like a virus is. It couldn't make the leap to

becoming a living cell. God had to intervene. Billions of years after

that He would enable prosimians, monkeys, apes, whales, dolphins

and porpoises to enjoy a modicum of self-awareness (consciousness)

and a level of comprehension of the immediate past and the

immediate future. Quite naturally, the most advanced ape - you -

would evolve the most advanced brain different in degree but not kind

from the other primates. This brain had a mind. Mind (soul?) exists in

the microtubules of nerve cells. The advanced brain and the mind

would quite understandably evolve to possess free will.

       You might describe Him as largely a do-nothing God who rarely

gets involved unless absolutely necessary. He started the cosmos

and enjoys watching his creation unfold. Why interfere? Perhaps,

for the most part, He can't do so -  being constrained by his own laws.

       Far-fetched? Please keep reading...
       You let go of an object and it falls. Billions of humans and

hominids have done it for millions of years. You can't let go of an

object and watch it rise? Can you? Are you a scientific realist guy/girl

or a save the phenomena guy/girl?

       The Ancients Greeks weren't attempting to describe absolute

reality, which is known only to the gods, but, attempting to construct

models which could successfully predict phenomena such as

eclipses. Our friend Plato feels that philosophers can glimpse reality

the best but not perfectly because we are encased in imperfect

bodies.

       Plato, and his student Aristotle, spoke of invisible crystalline

spheres within spheres to explain the universe. Geoge Abell in

"Exploration of the Universe" (1969; Holt, Rinchart, Winston, Inc.)

states: the spheres "were intended as mere mathematical 

representation of the motions of the planets. It was a scheme that

'saved the phenomena' better than the one before it, and in this

sense was successful...a scheme that would describe the

phenomena and would predict events...The epicycles of Ptolemy

(CJ: "on or not on spheres"), developed later, may similarly be

regarded as mathematical representations not intended to

describe reality."

      It should be pointed out that circles and spheres were

considered the most perfect geometrical shapes by the Greeks,

therefore, they probably thought that this was likely the way that

the gods were doing it. The Catholic Church would later embrace

it as literally true: Earth-centered with spheres within spheres

orbiting the earth; the celestial sphere consisted of only one

sphere and held the stars while the planets (sun, moon, Mercury,

Venus, Marts, Jupiter and Saturn traveled on spheres within

spheres).

     Scientific realists: electrons, genes, quasars, etc. are real and

 we really understand them. Science depicts reality. It also

applies to things that we cannot see: strings, dark matter, etc.

     We contend that a few scientists began to subscribe to

scientific realism between the Renaissance and the 1920s, it

became a large minority by the '70s and the vast majority since

then. We, therefore, disagree with the following statements:

"Exploration of the Universe": "...Ptolemy made no claim that

his cosmological model described reality. (CJ: "This is true.

Although, he might have thought that it might come close to

realitybut, His primary concern was prediction:"). He intended his

scheme rather as a mathematical representation to predict the

position of the planets at anytime. Modern astronomers do the

same thing with algebraic formulas." (CJ: "Ptolemy employed

geometry as algebra had not yet been invented"). Jagjit Singh

writes in his "Great Ideas and Theories of Modern Cosmology"

(1961; Dover Publications): "In natural science the most 'scientific'

' and 'up-to-date' view is that the laws of the universe are

unknowable and we can only construct more or less 'simple,'

 'economical,' or 'elegant' descriptions of phenomena. What 'really'

 happens around us can never be known. Hence the need for

grasping the 'true' essence of the universe by mystical intuition or

 spiritual second sight. Nor has cosmology been able to ward off

 the infection of God in some cosmological schemes to produce

 the 'miracle' of creation or 'guide' integrated evolution clearly

 shows." Jafjit thinks that religion should justify itself in its own

terms and not seek recourse in science which is a different

kettle of fish.

      While we consider 'scientific creationism' to be utter nonsense,

or, as critics call it 'the God of the Gaps,' we think it reasonable

to invoke God at the time of the singularity.

      We contend that the ancients felt that they may or may not be

depicting reality which they could only glimpse for it existed in

the heavenly realm, but, were successfully 'describing' nature in a

manner that enabled them to predict future events. In contrast,

today's scientists think that they are describing reality for sure and

that mathematics should suffice as proof.

      Our response: We are only 99% certain that the object won't

rise...and less certain of other scientific claims bordering on the

ultra-absurd: quantum physics; strings/branes; multi-verses; dark

matter and energy; Higgs-Bosons. We are fine with classical physics

 and relativity (even though the latter defies common sense, we

were won over by Al's thought experiments (rationalism) and the

abundance of experimental confirmation (empiricism).

Fair and Balanced: We claim that we have expressed positive, as

well, as critical views of God, religion and science in Plato's Man-

in-the-Cave Series. We have embraced ideas and attacked ideas

in both realms equally - we were duelists, so to speak.

FoxNews Alert: "Citizen Journalist released a statuette of Venus and

it rose! He said and we quote: 'You'll just have to take my word for

it. It happened. I swear to Zeus.'"