Bigthink - User Ideas Feed

Re: Definitions of God -- Void Filler

Bigthink — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:52:16 +0100

HealingZero -- Thank you for your kind words in another place. I very much appreciate your contributions to BigThink, as I'm sure others do.

Once again, I believe I can tailor my thinking to fit with your ideas. I don't see God and the Void as one, but there is a very strong relationship. By my definition, the void is simply 'imagination space'. As I've stated many times, this is where God belongs. From the time when we're born, we start to fill this space -- it seems to be an innate human-characteristic that we cannot avoid. Physicists, attempting to model the physical-world, have suggested that the 'void' is filled somehow with dark-matter [ and energy ]. The religiously-inclined do exactly the same thing, and fill the void with their gods. No self-respecting artist would ever offer a painting that showed areas of raw canvas, no matter how much they might wish to convey the concept of voidness.

Although the idea that God is imaginary may be insulting to some, there is a growing body of evidence that this could actually be the case. The recent thread you ran on "What is your definition of God? 100 Words or less", provides remarkable support. Because of the huge diversity in responses, it must be safe to assume that everyone has a different view about God. The only model that squares with that observation is the one where God is "of the mind".

And it would be out of character if I did not give a further plug to my theory on a unified-religion. At every opportunity, I have pushed for the separation of "God" and the "God-model". In the context of a void, this is filled as required by whatever religious-model a person wishes to adopt. But when trying to contemplate where the void came from, we need to confront the reality that there is certain information forever withheld.

The Concept of a Tidy Death

Bigthink — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 10:05:24 +0100

Early in childhood, in the same year, I lost two much-loved pets -- a turtle and a cat. It is quite unlikely that there was any connection between these deaths.

However, I was left with the impression of how tidy the process was. Both opted to quietly disappear to a place of their choosing, a place they would associate with contentment while alive. When found, they were neatly posed and peaceful. Those deaths did not leave any real negatives, besides the fact that I could no longer interact with them.

Later in life, I lost several close friends and relatives. Strangley, I judged their deaths by the same criteria as I judged my pets' deaths. There was a real comfort in seeing them pass tidilly. And this is exactly what I would want for myself, if I am able to have any say in the matter. I have not the least desire to stay alive, just for the sake of it, after quality-of-life sinks below a certain threshhold. Even more importantly -- I would not wish my loved-ones to witness an untidy passing.

A Mirrored World -- How would we know?

Bigthink — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 19:27:24 +0100

I once attended a lecture where the speaker casually stated the following...

"If one was instantly transported to a mirror-image of our universe, in the absence of man-made influences, we would never see the difference,"

Immediately I figured out a method to determine which world I was in, but never had the chance to debate the issue with the author. Has anyone else come across this 'challenge', and found a solution to it?

Why is Everything in Nature so Beautiful?

Bigthink — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:49:51 +0100

We can usually classify each of our fellow humans somewhere on the scale between Ugly and Beautiful. Not so with Nature. It is difficult to find any examples in the natural-world that can be considered ugly. The colors, are perfectly matched and blended; the shapes are perfect, even if non-symmetrical; the composition is perfect. There is some magic at work here.

If we try to draw or paint Nature, it can end up a real mess. For example, ask a child to draw a tree without its leaves -- at best, the result will look awkward. If we build something that does not have an exact symmetry, it looks a bit strange. How come Nature does not make aesthetic mistakes?

Could beauty simply be a measure NATURAL-ness? Is it possible that we are psychologically programmed to read all things in Nature as 'beautiful'? If this is the case, perhaps we should have also been programmed with a greater respect for the survival of such beauty.

Measuring Stuff

Bigthink — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 01:39:08 +0100

Through tertiary training, I learned to measure stuff. Physics taught me to measure to the limits of the measuring-equipment, while Engineering was a little more flippant in its approach to accuracy. I love measuring stuff.

This has carried through to everyday-life in surprising ways. When I finish reading the news over breakfast, I make a call, or measurement, on whether this is an 'Up-Day' or a 'Down-Day' [ in terms of World and National events ]. This does require a concerted effort to seek out any good news.

At the end of each day, I measure on a personal-level if, on balance, this has been a 'Good-Day' or a 'Bad-Day'. Gratifyingly, the G-Ds far outweigh the B-Ds. If I did not employ this technique, I could be tempted to focus on the negatives that are an inevitable part of all lives.

Unfortunately, the U-Ds are significantly fewer than the D-Ds. That's when I apply another trick from Engineering -- "Weighting". This is important to emphasize the things that matter in MY life. I cannot change the world, but I currently have reasonable influence in outcomes for my loved-ones. Yes... It's all about ME, and I make no apology [g].

For the engineeringly-inclined: DR = MD + 0.3 * (WD - 5)

DR == Overall Day Rating for MY world
MD == My Day: Rating on the B-D / G-D Scale [ from 0 to 10, respectively ]
WD == World Day: Rating on the D-D / U-D Scale [ from 0 to 10, respectively ]

Footnote: If this turns out to be a silly idea, BigThink has now provided the means for me to delete it [grin].

To Whom is God Answerable?

Bigthink — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 00:25:21 +0100

: Most models of God put him at the top of the pyramid. What if he is just part of a much larger structure?

This is not quite as crazy as it might seem at first glance. In physics, there are many theories suggesting that our Big-Bang is just one of many [ including my own theory ]. We are forever excluded from information outside our B-B, but that does not prevent us producing models that would work within our understanding and observation. Similarly, we will probably be prevented from reaching the true creator, and will need to be content with dealing with his intermediary.

Disclaimer: This is NOT a lead in to my unpublished short work - "The Bath-Tub of Creation". However, if pushed, I could provide a synopsis [grin].

What's in a Job-Title?

Bigthink — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:03:36 +0100

: Back in the days before we called a 'spade' an 'earth-manoeuvring device', it was relatively easy to communicate. Now days, every job-description has been bloated to the most artificial and meaningless extremes.

This concept may have had its roots in the German-language, where an entire sentence can be concatenated to form a word.

What convoluted descriptions of simple devices or job-descriptions can you suggest to illustrate the absurdity of this trend? [ German-language examples welcomed ]

Why Doesn't God Write Stuff Down?

Bigthink — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 05:36:03 +0100

By his own admission, George gets a helping-hand ruling America when God whispers to him. I'm quite sure Osama Bin Laden also gets messages from the almighty. Question: Is it the same God and is it the same message? Common in western theology is the concept that there is but one god. Let's assume there is. Would he be mischievous enough to whisper different messages to different people. I suspect not.

The only conclusion here is that everyone gets the same message, but they interpret it differently; VERY differently. To the best of my knowledge, except for the odd chiselled-commandment, God left it to others to put his thoughts on paper. If only he wrote the rules down himself, we could put our own interpretation on things, rather than receiving everything second-hand, complete with the obligatory spin.

Alternative Thoughts on Alternative Fuels

Bigthink — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 03:15:27 +0100

There is a broad categorisation of energy, that does not seem to be considered in the current discussions about alternative-fuels - STATIONARY-ENERGY and MOBILE-ENERGY.

Stationary-energy can come from fossil-fuels, or any of the cleaner methods under consideration. For argument's sake, lets assume that S-E is far more efficient [ and environmentally-friendly ] than M-E. Then, it would be logical to think in terms of converting S-E to M-E. The obvious choice here is to produce hydrogen as a source of M-E. This has been trialled, very successfully, in Europe. The show-stopper is "distribution".

My idea [ which may be original, or it may not ] is to design and build a practical, portable hydrogen-generator, to be used at the gas-station level or even in the home. While the production of hydrogen [ and oxgen ] is hardly rocket-science, a serious effort will still be required to make the process portable, economic, efficient, and SAFE.

Re: How will this age be remembered?

Bigthink — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:32:30 +0100

Surely this must go down as "The Age of Spin".

Historically, history was rewritten in its future. Not so today. Spin-meisters are furiously rewriting history, sometimes before its even happened. American has developed this into a high-art, but the world follows, depressingly close behind. Sadly, this may be the age that introduced spin -- it might never go away.

What ever happened to the good old-fashioned concept of 'saying it like it is'?

Is it really Patriotism?

Bigthink — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:02:52 +0100

Any visitor to the United-States in the last decade or so, would notice that it was impossible to escape an image of the Americam-flag during daylight-hours. I once had the audacity to ask about this flag-waving, and the common-response? - "Because everyone-else does it". Wrong answer! It should have been, "Because I am a patriot".

Hence, the next question is, "If patriotism is a natural expression of pride in one's country and its ideals, why is it necessary to sell it so hard?". There now seems to be a real disconnect between the flag-waving and what it really means. The most cynical-conclusion could be that it is used to obscure any logical-assessment and debate about issues of national-conscience. Did I get it wrong?

Ideas Reset at 'Go Live'?

Bigthink — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 01:29:36 +0100

"Will the current database-of-ideas be wiped and the counter reset when BigThink goes Live?", said he, furiously doing backups in anticipation of an affirmative reply.

I could not live with the thought that my ideas posted to BigThink thus far, might die with me.

"What topics would you like to see discussed on BigThink?"

Bigthink — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:08:41 +0100

OK... this is the first idea I've posted that is not actually my own.

Big Thinker has suggested I canvas opinioins, perhaps as a precursor to running some kind of online-poll. The obvious question, regarding the next American election, has already been registered. "God" & "exists" also delivers a huge response from the search-engine.

Any other proposals?

Laughter - Who Needs It?

Bigthink — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:24:54 +0100

Laughter comes in two forms. In its natural form, it is an expression of happiness, or a reaction to something humerous. In our media-driven society, there is another form - that of a trigger to suggest that something might be funny. I would like to share a few thoughts on the latter, and question the value.

The use of 'canned-laughter' in the endless array of comedy[?]-sitcoms, is a cover for the fact that the scripts are becoming increasingly unfunny. In the early days of television, live-audiences were used for this laughter, but even then, the 'laugh-lights' told an audience when a response was required. Today, it seems we have dispensed with any human intervention in the process, and just automatically insert this nonsense every five seconds, regardless of whether something is remotely funny or not.

One theory of mine [ as yet untested ] is that the success of animated-comedies is due in large part to the absence of these inane cues.

The Off-Handed Mouse

Bigthink — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:51:32 +0100

With untold hundreds-of-millions of people who use computer-mice, I can't understand how I could be the only one to figure out which hand to operate it with.

I guess blame goes to the guy who wrote the first mouse-manual - he just picked the thing up and, since he was a right-handed person, assumed that the mouse was meant to be a right-handed device. If he spent another few seconds pondering the issue, he probably would have realized that the mouse was designed to be used in the SECONDARY-hand, rather than the primary. Another slip-up in documentation was when authors insisted on calling the mouse-buttons LEFT and RIGHT. Even the earliest mouse-drivers allowed for an interchange between the two. Correct usage should have been, "mouse #1" and "mouse #2".

Consider the keyboard-layout. The design is geared to RH people, with activity weighted to the RH-side. Wouldn't it then be logical for any supplementary-device to be used in the other hand? Some might argue that they can't do stuff with their 'other' hand. This is not a valid argument. The computer-mouse is not something that has an equivalent in the natural-world. There is no 'instinct' that predisposes us to a certain usage. However, the first five minutes a toddler spends with a mouse, will set the pattern for life.

Let's look at dexterity. I am not an ambidextrous person by any measure, but since day-one of mouse-usage, I have been totally comfortable with the mouse in my left-hand. Today, I can swap hands without missing a beat. This would not be the case if the mouse only added exercise to my RH-side. Taking a more gloomy scenario - if I ever lost one of my upper-limbs, I would still have reasonable computer-capability without retraining.

Epilogue: There may be a hundred or so right-handed users who believe they made the correct choice in following my early advice. When the computer-mouse came into common-use, I did contemplate taking up the crusade for its correct usage. This did not eventuate - there were too many crusades in progress on other fronts [grin].

Bounded Freedom - A Real Paradox...

Bigthink — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:56:11 +0100

Cracks may be starting to appear in the Freedom-Model being practised by America.

'The Right to Bear Arms' cannot be considerd for the common-good if a large proportion of the population is running scared, or prematurely deceased.

'The Right To Free Speech' is of little value if one needs to spend the life-savings on legal-fees to defend it.

The list goes on. The point here is not to demonize freedom, but rather to suggest that limits need to be applied to prevent farcical-scenarios from playing out. And once these limits are applied, the question then becomes one of degree, and whether or not a society can still be considered free AND democratic. I note with interest, that George W. Bush has determined his enemies "hate freedom". They may have good cause.

I have proposed in another place, that the ideal political-model could be the Benevolent-Dictatorship, if it was not for the fact that benevolence is a corruptible quality.

The paradox continues...

[ ED: I may have blurred the lines between FREEDOMS and RIGHTS in the above, but I believe the basic point is still a valid one. ]

Is There Anybody Home?

Bigthink — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:14:34 +0100

: If Intelligence comes knocking, will we have enough energy left to answer the door?

Back in my university-years, I spent many extra-curricula hours debating the existence of God over beer and pizza. I thought the issue was all sorted, but judging by the BigThink fourm, apparently not. The subscriber-base seems equally divided between the godders and the non-godders, leading to lots of related traffic. While all forms of mental-exercise can be worthwhile, there could be the danger that overemphasis on this topic could create a background-buzz that totally obscures any sign of intelligent thoughts and comments on other equally-worthy topics.

This leads to another thought... The rate of adding ideas has increased dramatically, but there is also a corresponding rise in the rate of repetition. Theoretically, idea-growth should be slowed by contributors having to research ideas already in place, before adding their own. There is evidence that this may not be happening, with members sometimes taking the short-cut and posting blindly, regardless of the quality or originality of the idea. If BigThink is to maintain a high-standard, this practice should be discouraged.

The effort in an idea is not the having of it, but rather the research required to determine its value [ could that be another quotable-quote? ].

Re: What does the stock plunge mean for our economy?

Bigthink — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:59:47 +0100

: The current dramatic-dive in world stock-markets is no more than the reality-check we needed to have. Most economies will suffer short-term, including the US. However, the upside is that it is better to confront the inevitable issues now, than stave them off for the years ahead when more-drastic measures would be required to address them.

Re: Can computer programs be considered alive?

Bigthink — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:10:42 +0100

: When dealing with the silicon-based computers in common-use today, the question is relatively clear-cut - computer-programs [ or rather, the devices they drive ] cannot be considered 'alive'. However, as the demarcation between man and machine blurs, this answer will lean heavily towards "yes". We are very rapidly approaching the point where biological-elements are at the heart of control-systems. Watch this space for a whole raft of ethical-issues to arise.

When we have virtual-reality bedded-down, we'll wonder what the hell reality was all about [grin].

Re: Are CEO's salaries bloated?

Bigthink — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:25:57 +0100

: Some of the discussions on this topic focus on the fairness, rather than the market-forces that allow huge salaries. Any time there is a skill or resource that is in short-supply, the 'auction' will determine who gets the resource.