how-to block ads
|
Pete Zaa
@qsc.de
 from:
Sparrow 
| reply to SparkChaser
Re: Large Hadron Collider (LHC) 10 September 2008
said by SparkChaser : What I was trying to say is that IMHO the description "god particle" whether used to sell books or because the author thought it sounded cute does a dis-service to science. The kicker here is that whether or not it's a good or accurate term depends entirely upon the connotations assigned to it by a given individual. And whether they are able to get past those connotations.
In literal terms, (denotation) the name refers to a particle which, if it's existence can be confirmed, will help tie together the modern understanding of how the world around us works. And since names are simply guideposts to reality, it doesn't really matter what I call something, does it? I mean, changing the name of something in no way changes the physical nature of that "something," only the way in which it is referred to. For instance, I can refer to Madeleine Albright as "Pamela Anderson" all I want, but she is still going to retain her, uh, distinctive appearance.
But the connotations (emotional associations) that go along with the word "God" may indeed make it a poor choice. Because the word "God" may evoke different connotations with me than it might with you.
But the point I'm trying to get to here is that the "God" of religion may be interpreted by some religionists to be, not necessarily an old guy with a beard, but a unifying force. And as far as some physicists are concerned, that's exactly what they are trying to discover as well: a unifying force. In this case, one that bestows mass on all the other particles.
But the unifying force that the physicists are seeking doesn't come with all the connotations of the "unifying force" of the religionists, d'you see?
So if you can take the phrase "God particle" and read it literally, (rather than connotatively) it doesn't come across as something all that bad. And that could be why the name has stuck for more than a decade: because if you don't get hung up on the connotations associated with the word, it's actually a very clever way of expressing an idea.
said by SparkChaser :Like many of Eisenstein quotes that have god in them are taken out of context or totally misquoted. If I understand Einstein correctly, (assuming that's who you're referring to) the "God" he referred to was a unifying force that bound the universe together. And the message that he seems to have gotten from all of his thinking and research is that events don't "just happen:" there is a logic of sorts behind those events. But he seems to have rejected the idea of a personal God taking an interest in human affairs.
His chief problem was that religionists, atheists, and agnostics alike were always tripping over each other in their rush to put words into his mouth.
So while the atheists wanted to believe that Einstein's views matched theirs, and religionists wanted to believe that his views matched theirs, the truth seems to be that his views matched neither.
Shortly before his death, he wrote in a letter that he understood himself to be a "deeply religious unbeliever." Which may sound like an irreconcilable contradiction, but I think I see what he was getting at: his own "religion" was the sense of wonder and awe that he felt by glimpsing the workings of the universe.
If that was indeed the case, the meaning behind his dictum "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind," suddenly becomes clearer (at least somewhat). | |
Sparrow
Crystal Sky
Premium
join:2002-12-03
Sachakhand
| [OT] Please sign up!
Pete, your posts are a pure joy to read. You balance logic, intelligence, sensitivity and an obvious open-mindedness that is sorely lacking in our world at large. (Not a comment on anyone here, simply a generalization.)
The downside is, there is a member option at dslreports.com, to blinding block all anonymous posters, and for those who have enabled that particular option, they can not read your posts, and that is a shame.
Sign up, if you are not simply posting anonymously to protect a member ID you may already have here.
By the way, I know several "deeply religious unbeliever[s]", and some of them stand head and shoulders above the most seemingly devout.
You have my vote. 
--
"Be simple, be earnest and spread that simplicity throughout everything you do." | |
Pete Zaa
@qsc.de
from:
Sparrow
| said by Sparrow :Pete, your posts are a pure joy to read. You balance logic, intelligence, sensitivity and an obvious open-mindedness that is sorely lacking in our world at large. (Not a comment on anyone here, simply a generalization.) "Praise makes good men better and bad men worse." - Thomas Fuller
I have no way of knowing which camp I fall into, (and likely never will) so you're taking an awful chance here.
said by Sparrow :The downside is, there is a member option at dslreports.com, to blinding block all anonymous posters, and for those who have enabled that particular option, they can not read your posts, and that is a shame. What downside?
I don't write things in order to inform or impress other people: I write in order to clarify my thoughts and rationalize my perspective to myself. Because it's no good having thoughts and perspectives that don't hold together when exposed to other thoughts and perspectives, is it?
And speaking for myself, I always try to be ready to exchange my ideas for newer, better ones if my current set of ideas can no longer stand up to scrutiny.
(As an aside, that is the truly amazing thing about the Internet: for the first time in history, you and I have the potential to be exposed to the thoughts and perspectives of the entire human race, from any point on the planet. For better or for worse.)
So while it may be "a shame" that some people may not see what I write, if what I'm writing is of some benefit to them, and they don't chance to see it, I'm sure they'll find what they need somewhere else.
But the important thing is that they find what they're looking for, whatever "it" is. Whether you or I happen to be the one providing it to them at that particular point in time makes no difference.
said by Sparrow :Sign up, if you are not simply posting anonymously to protect a member ID you may already have here. If you'll pardon my saying so, the same sort of people who block all anonymous posters are just as likely to block any username I might choose. It's presumptuous of me to think so, I know, but that's how I feel.
Of course, I'm not the only one capable of holding presumptions. I say this because I've seen registered posters state flat-out that, for reasons that are unclear to me, what anonymous posters have to say is worthless.
(And they could well be right, with this post serving as Exhibit A in their case.)
But if it turns out that registered users do not enjoy a monopoly on writing things that are worth reading, then the only people who end up cheated are the ones who choose to block anonymous posts.
And while that might have bothered me at one time, it no longer does.
said by Sparrow :By the way, I know several "deeply religious unbeliever[s]", and some of them stand head and shoulders above the most seemingly devout. Perhaps the real difficulty is that we tend to view the world in terms of "self" and "other." And part of the process of dealing with "other" is assigning labels to people and things.
And then assigning attributes to those labels. Which is where we start getting into trouble.
I'm afraid that scientists and religionists may actually be reaching for the same goal. But because of the different labels that have been assigned to them, and that they themselves have chosen to assign to others, it's difficult for them to recognize that; they're too busy getting hung up on the labels.
It is said that there are three ways to attain enlightenment: knowledge, service, and prayer. And religionists may simply favor prayer as a tool to "get the job done," while scientists favor knowledge. But they are seeking, ultimately, the same goal, merely choosing different means to get there. This is just a guess on my part.
At any rate, the LHC impresses me with the amount of money, time, and effort that is spent on it. And the earnestness with which the scientists involved are pursuing their goal. For some inexplicable reason, it makes me want to take myself much less seriously. | |
Sparrow
Crystal Sky
Premium
join:2002-12-03
Sachakhand
| said by Pete Zaa :
...I don't write things in order to inform or impress other people: I write in order to clarify my thoughts and rationalize my perspective to myself. Because it's no good having thoughts and perspectives that don't hold together when exposed to other thoughts and perspectives, is it? You have no objection from me in this case as I am in complete agreement with you.
I do not take Gibran's words as too common to be cliché, but cliché, because they are worth remembering and remembered by so many: Teaching. (No more need be said on the subject.)
said by Pete Zaa :
Perhaps the real difficulty is that we tend to view the world in terms of "self" and "other." And part of the process of dealing with "other" is assigning labels to people and things.
And then assigning attributes to those labels. Which is where we start getting into trouble.
I'm afraid that scientists and religionists may actually be reaching for the same goal. But because of the different labels that have been assigned to them, and that they themselves have chosen to assign to others, it's difficult for them to recognize that; they're too busy getting hung up on the labels.
It is said that there are three ways to attain enlightenment: knowledge, service, and prayer. And religionists may simply favor prayer as a tool to "get the job done," while scientists favor knowledge. But they are seeking, ultimately, the same goal, merely choosing different means to get there. This is just a guess on my part.
At any rate, the LHC impresses me with the amount of money, time, and effort that is spent on it. And the earnestness with which the scientists involved are pursuing their goal. For some inexplicable reason, it makes me want to take myself much less seriously.
There is nothing that need be feared, as religionists and scientists are indubitably reaching toward the same goal, and they need not be in agreement on an individual level.
As you so aptly state, scientists, as well as the myriad forms of man-made / self-made (not God-made) religions of myriad flavours, they are all reaching for the unity of self with God, upon whichever path they chose to walk or whatever name they chose to use for the unity they seek.
As I stated above, my insatiable fascination rests in the physical attributes of the project, the pure brilliance of research, design, engineering and final construction.
I want nothing more than to see positive results from CERN, and am cheering the team on that they do discover that which they are seeking. I also pray it is as safe as I am being told by physicists; not for my sake, but for the sake of others. | |
-
|
