Not Plasmids then?
Damn, I was hoping that I could have Incinerate for when my lighter runs out and I fancy a cig.
IGMC - it's the one with the baccy and Rizlas in the pocket...
Steven R
Boffins build World's tiniest 'laser'
Scientists in the US have developed what they claim is the world's smallest laser. The device, which is just 44nm in diameter, could pave the way for the development of chips that operate using light rather than electrons. The device isn't technically a laser, but it works using the same principle. It uses a property of metals …
-
Monday 17th August 2009 13:31 GMT Hollerith 1
Who needs religion?
What we are able to understand and use, at these incredibly small sizes, quantum forces that will lead to better technology, faster communication, more number-crunching, is mind-boggling, and we are only at the beginning of our voage of discovery. When science is giving us this amazing and dazzling knowledge from the very small tot he very great, how can anyone find wonder in stories invented four millennia ago to explain weather, luck and power?
-
Monday 17th August 2009 14:23 GMT DZ-Jay
Re: Who needs religion
@Hollerith 1:
Ok, I'll bite. Without entering into an entire metaphysical and philosophical discussion, I'll just say that religion has tried to do more than just attempt to "explain weather, luck and power". It has tried to find meaning for existence and coherence with our surroundings. Sure, science explains a lot of how the world works, and I'll guess that we have much, much more to discover as time goes by; but it still cannot answer some basic inquiries that has baffled mankind for millenia, mainly, what is all of it for, and why are we here, and so briefly.
This questions lie at the heart of what it is to be human, and may never be answered by science. Religion may not answer them either, but it at least attempts to look for an explanation beyond the mere physical qualities of the universe, and it certainly gives comfort, if not pure understanding, to entire societies regarding their place within this universe.
I'm not a religious person, but at least I can appreciate that there is more to being human than the mere curiousity of understanding the mechanical and physical properites of our universe, though that may be a big part of it. That there is a deep drive to comprehend our position within this universe, and that introspection and reflection can be as meaningful and gratifying as physical observation and rational speculation. That, to this end some seek religion, is just a personal choice they make. To each their own, I say.
-dZ.
-
Monday 17th August 2009 14:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
@Hollerith 1
On the contrary; Science itself, or at least bastardised sections of it, is/are becoming a religion. Look at "Climate Science"- if someone was to somehow provide and publish clear and absolutely irrefutable proof that it's all a natural cycle and we'll be fine in 20 years (probably isn't true, no idea what proof) then they'd be shouted down as a heretic. Actually you'd probably get a bit of a bashing for suggesting simply that we'll be okay in 20 years- and that IS supported by most of the science!
With other bits of Science there's less momentum, but many scientists hold an almost dogmatic belief in certain bits of what are almost unprovable theories.
Then you've got the Politicos telling us that we've got to do things because it is commanded by Science Itself! I guess the celebs don't help- anyone remember Dr Fox's infamous "There's no actual evidence behind it, but it IS Scientific fact"
Give it a couple of years and they'll be building shrines to the LHC...
-
-
Monday 17th August 2009 16:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
@ DZ-Jay
"I'll just say that religion has tried to do more than just attempt to "explain weather, luck and power". It has tried to find meaning for existence and coherence with our surroundings"
But what makes it more authoritative than the man who believes the moon is made of cheese?
It hasn't "tried to find meaning", it just makes stuff up.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Monday 17th August 2009 23:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
@DZ-Jay
"What's it all for"
That supposes the existance of a superbeing to have had a purpose for it. An aetheist would have to believe that there IS no overriding purpose for the universe.
A theist would also have to accept that it's possible there's no purpose; we could just be an accident or a side-effect. They could also have to accept that we'll never know- any superbeing so... well, super that they could create a universe would surely have inconceivably complex purposes for what they set out to do?
A Scientist would say that there's no solid evidence for or against a superbeing creator. But as no evidence *for* has been found and the chance of us being able to understand its motives if there is a superbeing are so small- as well as the extra complications that would arise (Why is the superbeing there?) they'd probably stick to working on the presumption that there isn't one- a presumption that would be changed as soon as there's evidence for a superbeing's existance.
"Why are we here"
Isn't that pretty much the same as the first question? I guess we're here because of infinitely complex socioeconomic and biological factors stretching back for millennia. Because if you weren't here now then the laws the universe runs on would have been different. We're here because there's nowhere else that we here now could be.
"and so briefly"
Because we don't look when we cross the road. Because we're mortal- we run out of time. The idea that it's briefly is only one of scale- on the timeframe of a fruitfly or a bacterium- even ones that live within us and without which we wouldn't work properly- we live for vast periods of time. Compared to an atom of Francium you exist for an almost infinite length of time.
If you're meaning so briefly in terms of geological time, think of the next stage up- planetary development phases. Then the next- the formation and destruction of whole Solar systems.
Religion is one big ego trip. It supposes that what we see is the "right" way of seeing things, that our concept of time is the right concept of time and that we've got a purpose. We're tiny on a universal scale- or huge on even the scale of what we can mass produce. I'm something like 45,000,000 times taller than the transistors in the machine I'm using to type this, and I'm one 4.7x10^-20 of the galaxy- of which there are billions.
Time-wise, in a single 75-year human life 1,793,045 francium atoms could have been created and disappeared. Earth will have travelled 43,803,000,000 miles.
Any scale in between those- and even outside those- is equally valid.
That we're here at all is the product of a billion billion billion variables- all of which had to be absolutely right. All ~10Octillion atoms in your body had to be arranged exactly where they are, the physical rules behind it all had to be correct. Your surrounding atmosphere had to be right to not make you burst. The whole world had to be the right size just to support that atmosphere- and there had to be billions of years of history to get these uncountable atoms in just the right configuration for you to be typing.
That we arose from such a complex, vastly chaotic system is surely a greater puzzle than knowing the mind of a superbeing who would have such a complex system beyond them? And surely to simplify it to "God did it" is just an insult to the beautiful structures that have risen almost randomly from the chaotic mass of atoms as well as to the human mind- a mind that has created artificial structures and systems that allow us to comprehend such infinite variables?
Sorry, I'm probably rambling or ranting. But the universe is big enough and beautiful enough to be amazing and miraculous without a God.
-
-
Monday 17th August 2009 23:41 GMT Sorry that handle is already taken.
AC @ 17/8/2009 14:29
"if someone was to somehow provide and publish clear and absolutely irrefutable proof that it's all a natural cycle and we'll be fine in 20 years (probably isn't true, no idea what proof) then they'd be shouted down as a heretic."
You are quite wrong. If such an idea was supported by the evidence it would be a candidate for greatest scientific work of the century.
-
Tuesday 18th August 2009 09:48 GMT Il Midga di Macaroni
If you want to debate religion, go to Facebook
I can't believe the science vs religion thing is still fondly believed by so many people!
Define religion as a set of beliefs about supernatural beings (the belief might be that there are none) and it's self evident that religion and sceince are logically incapable of stepping on each other's toes! I mean, when was the last time a ghost stayed put long enough to have its temperature taken, for instance?
Now back to lasers? Please?
-
Tuesday 18th August 2009 12:23 GMT Secretgeek
@AC16:24
I tried explaining something like that to a couple of Jehovah's witnesses once (i was bored), I threw in the 'Religion is something we need to grow out of.' as well. They left confused. I know they were confused as they didn't leave a copy of the Watchtower.
As an aside, how many of these spasers can you fit on the head of a sea monkey?
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
