Talk:Universe/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 14 November 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Odd list

This discussion was moved here from Talk:Universe/Future.

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Odd list that SusanG, and why the brackets?LateralQuercus 17:40, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Pure ignorance - I'm gonna concentrate on the scienceI dunno what the braced religions have for end of everything - the list is up for editing by anyone - probably links to appropriate pages describing each end scenario. Keep ^{him away from ME} 17:32, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

It may be a little more complex than this. For instance, in Buddhism it's not so much a question of the end of the universe, but rather an insanely complex scheme of deterioration and re-creation of a succession of universes. Depending on denomination, Hinduism has something similar. Taoism would probably consider the whole idea irrelevant. Even Ragnarok is more of a rebirth/reconstruction of the universe than an actual ending. And Judaism - well, that really depends on how creatively you read the Talmud. But in general, are probably the two major religions that think in terms of an actual end of the physical world.

(Götterdämmerung and Ragnarok is basically the same, BTW.) --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:03, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

I think there are two versions of Ragnarok, one with rebirth and one without. Researcher 17:18, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Title

I think this should be moved to a more meaningful title, like "End of the universe". Does anyone concur or disagree before I go tossing around this fine china with my horns? human^{be in} 18:25, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

OK, this looks better, after all the changes. I am going to move both "sub" universe articles into the proper mainspace unless someone makes a case for them being, hehe, in "subspace". And retitle them. Comments? I come here to discuss and no one tells me what the hell they are trying to do... human^{be in} 01:23, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

blanking most of page

Why was that done? Susan... calling Susan, please meet here on talk... so I will at least know what you are doing and leave it alone if necessary... human^{be in} 20:01, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Dark Matter

What do scientists think about the long-term prospects of dark matter? That is, doesn't it eventually all lose its energy, leaving gravity to bring the "big crunch," or is there a reason for gravity to not prevail in time?--MountainTiger 01:20, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Rapture, Armageddon

I don't think that either of these is really what we're going for in that note. Both are steps during the "ending of the universe," but neither is the end state, for differing reasons. The rapture is a specialized delusion of certain evangelicals, while Armageddon is a site in the biblical world, I think in modern Lebanon (possibly Israel) today. The wider end state is, I think, in the judgment and division of humanity into good and evil. Just my 0.02.--MountainTiger 01:26, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

"Second Coming" might be a better term - it sort of includes all the other events attached to it, before and after. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 07:08, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Amend it then. That's what a wiki's for - some people have no worries about doing it @ 10 minutes notice. Keep ^{to yourself} 07:14, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Covert or just non-existent?

Now, this:

"Envisaging a Universe without[5] a thinking, guiding force[6] with a constant influence on events has, for most of recorded history, been a necessarily covert belief as such ideas have brought opprobrium and sanction upon anyone brave, or stupid, enough to express them. [...]

"Natural philosophers, the precursors of today's scientists, began the description of the world about them in all the ancient civilisations of the world but very few dared to pronounce an atheistic world view."

is a seriously problematic statement. I would suggest the alternative interpretation that an atheistic world view was simply not possible until the intellectual landscape changed sufficiently through the Enlightenment and the early appearances of Modernism to contain it. I for one have a very hard time imagining a medieval atheist, much less an ancient Egyptian one. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 07:28, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Amend it then. That's what a wiki's for - some people have no worries about doing it @ 10 minutes notice. Keep ^{to yourself} 08:10, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Indeed. However, I am supposed to discuss controversial edits beforehand. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 08:15, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

As I despise religion you are free to make any amendments you wish - I wouldn't care. Keep ^{to yourself} 08:21, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Appreciate it, although this is properly a question of history, not religion. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 08:31, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Do with it as you will, I'd be surprised if everyone was a believer though - I'm a bit with Henry Ford on History.Keep ^{to yourself} 08:47, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

People can be more or less religious, of course, or not at all, but actively and consciously atheist - I doubt it, at least before the 17th century at the earliest. But do let me know if you find any. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:57, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm with AK on this one. The smartest people we have records of, like the ancient Greeks, didn't ever seem to really consider "no gods" as a reality. And plenty of people died for lesser heresies (Socrates, Copernicus?) without expressing complete disbelief. human^{be in} 18:55, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

So - change the fucking thing then - it bothers me not what a load of primitive godbotherers did.Keep ^{to yourself} 21:23, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

You might want to keep in mind that those "primitive godbotherers" are the ones who laid the groundworks for the world we have the privilege of living in today. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 07:32, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

Interesting...i'm not sure about the historicity of the issue. Sure, many people vaguely believed in a guiding force of some sort, but how much did it influence their view of the universe? I don't really know. I am pretty sure that believing in the big bang does not exclude theism. I do think that one's belief can be irrelevant, as long as it doesn't interfere with scientific thinking (in other words, it's somewhat sequestered). A biblical literalist could not have come up with evolution. anyway...--PalMD^{-Ars longa, vita brevis} 09:49, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

"The only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn anything from history." My, admittedly totally biased, judgement of the history of knowlege is that without religion we would probably have had atomic power by the 15th century 19th century. I can't think of anything that religious persons have done that couldn't have been done better by an atheist i.e without the shackle of forced conformity to a ridiculous premise (God). Keep ^{to yourself} 11:28, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I've heard that theory before. Like most counterfactuals, it's definitely interesting but ultimately hard to do anything useful with. However, the fact remains that until very recently, the vast majority of scholars were in fact religious people, and (at least in Europe) until the 13th century clergy as well. So I guess we'll just have to make with what they did manage to come up with.

Also, if it was really a "shackle of forced conformity", then where are all these supposed atheists that must have been forced to conform? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 06:12, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

"Religion" and "religious movements" are very different things. Most people (really, it's true) have some sort of spiritual sense, which, depending on their culture, is often expressed as religious. Whether the origins are evolutionary (i think probably) or not. Given that most people have a spiritual sense, Einsteinian or otherwise, for some people it has encouraged scientific exploration, for others, inhibited. The Church of England, for instance, despite being a national religion, is not, these days, particularly, um, religious.

Religious movements are different. The American religious right, for instance, is actively hostile to science, and must be fought. User:PalMD