Bigthink - User Ideas Feed

The last question.

Bigthink — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:51:49 +0100

Alright guys/gals, this one is extremely hypothetical but in a sense does have something to do with us and humans as a species. Granted we don't destroy ourselves or are wiped out by aliens, etc., that is to say that we survive to see the day when all of the energy and matter in the universe starts running out, what will we do? In a more scientific sense: How may entropy be reversed? I realize technologies would be incredibly different than now. It's like comparing rocks to missles. Isaac Asimov wrote about this in his famous short story "The Last Question". If you are interested you can find the full text here, it is a very short read:

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

What does it mean to be spiritual?

Bigthink — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:06:59 +0100

: Are you spiritual? What does that mean to you?

Backwards Time-travel

Bigthink — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:50:23 +0100

: There is already a post about time-travel; however, I have a more specific question. Do you think time travel to the past can ever be possible? If so, how do you speculate it would work?

Do you believe in destiny?

Bigthink — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:07:30 +0100

: The questioned asked is whether or not you believe in destiny. What I mean is, do you believe that you have a predetermined fate/destiny that you can not change. Do you have a future already planned out for you. I for one, believe that I have no pre-determined destiny/fate. The choices I make, the chances I take determine my future.

What is wrong with homosexuality?

Bigthink — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 19:27:39 +0100

: First off let me say that I am not homosexual nor do I have anything against people who are. I would like to know what problems people have with homosexuality. Why do people attack it when it does not harm them? What is wrong with being gay?

Re: god or no god? does it matter?

Bigthink — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:57:31 +0100

to Boyofman:

I see the point you are trying to make; however, I do not agree with what you are saying. The purpose of the site is to share ideas, see what other people think. That is what we are doing. We are not using guns to prove our points and make others believe. We are using our words to engage in intelligent arguements about these subjects. "War does not determine who is right, it determines who is left". However, debates and brainstorming sessions can determine who is correct. Perhaps, not on this matter because of its nature.

I have no hatred for those who oppose my viewpoints. Infact, I welcome those arguements so that I may be able to refute them and present my side of the story. Granted, sometimes I may have verbally "attacked" someone, but that in no way means I would cause this person any physical harm for not seeing things my way. Actually, we had a debate on religion last night at my house with a couple of friends over beers. When it was over, we shook hands and there was no tension. The way I disagree with your statement, I garuntee will not cause a war between us.

Re: Faith and Beliefs: Whom should we interview?

Bigthink — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:32:29 +0100

: I think Richard Dawkins would be an excellent candidate. However, because of his highly polarized viewpoint, I think it may benefit everyone to have someone on the opposite side as well. Perhaps, set as a debate with questions for each side by the Bigthink community. What questions would you guys like to ask each side of the debate? Example: Professor Dawkins: Life is too elegant to have evolved. What do you think? Other side: Atheists claim that you can not prove the existence of a God by saying there is no way to disprove His existence. This way, the community can contribute to the interview. The faith and beliefs section of Bigthink has been having a heated debate for last couple days and it would be great to have expert opinions on what we have been talking about. Thanks for listening.

Re: Time Travel Maybe

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:00:44 +0100

: I understand the concept of time being relative as Einstein puts it. If something is moving faster than something else, it experiences time differently. That is time is moving slower for the faster moving object relative to the slower moving object. I don't understand why you have the earth's rotation in your question. We have satellites that are in geosynchronous orbit around the Earth. Meaning they rotate the same as the earth does. Because of this, there is a time difference between satellites in space and people on earth. GPS navigation systems take advantage of this, do some crazy math to compensate for relativistic effects and what not to work. It seems I'm going off on a tangent. I'm sorry but I don't see any reason to think your idea would work. Now if you wanted to get on a hypothetical spaceship traveling close to the speed of light and spent a year on it and then came back to Earth. You will find that time has progressed a lot faster for the people on Earth. That is, your one year on the spaceship was much longer than a year on Earth (I haven't worked out the math to know exactly how much longer)

Consciousness: What is it?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:53:56 +0100

: I recently wrote a paper on trying explain what consciousness is. I was just wondering what you guys believe consciousness to be. How do you perceive it? Why/How does it exist?

Re: In the last 60-70 years, innovation has gone extremely fast. Why is that?

Bigthink — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 02:15:43 +0100

Certainly our technological growth over time has not been linear. It is more like a exponential curve. Kevin Kelly has a very fascinating lecture on technology in which he applies the theory of evolution to technological growth. I would recommend it to get an interesting perspective on it: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/19.

Artificial intelligence, I believe has a theory about a singularity being reached in technological growth. After we invent tools, we use these new tools to create even more efficient tools. We then use these new efficient tools to create even better tools fast than we could with our old tools. So you can see, once a new technology is created it facilitates the creation of other technologies.

Not to mention 60-70 years ago digital chips and computers were relatively new and barely advancing. Once started their growth can now only be described using an exponential curve.

Re: Should the rich be expected to give away their money?

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:06:14 +0100

: Fairness and equity is different depending from whose eye's you view the situation. The wealthy would not deem it fair to distribute the wealth they have worked for; whereas, the poor may see it perfectly fair to receive free money from the rich. I support taxing the wealthy a percentage of their income; however, beyond that a person has the right to decide whether or not they want to donate to charities or not. Many of those poor people may well deserve to be in the situation they are in. If they do nothing to get themselves away from poverty, who are the rich to just give them money? I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination, yet, I don't believe the rich "owe" me anything. The point I'm making goes for the U.S.; however, I don't know what I would really do to handle impoverished nations.

Re: Re: if the big bang theory is true...

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:31:57 +0100

: Because I'm having trouble posting a comment on my statement, I will do it this way Two Comments: To thatguy: Thank you for the laugh. I understand what you're saying about nothing exploding into something. I'm no expert, but I beleive the Big Bang Theory says that everything was compressed into the "tiny speck" then it exploded and expanded into what we call our universe. Throughout time, the laws of physics shaped everything, gravity brought things together, stars were born, evolution, the whole nine yards. You would rather believe an invisible man clapped his hands and we had light? Certainly that it is a much better thing to teach our children instead of something based on a ridiculous amount of facts. Granted, the big bang theory may not be correct; however, it is one of the most accurate models of the universe we have. To Stew: Nice brainstorming, I actually wrote the same question in another post regarding religion. It is man that has created God.

Re: Is Scientology dangerous?

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:09:07 +0100

: I think your question is a good starting point; however, If you attack scientology, why not attack all organized religion as being dangerous. Organized religions of different denominations can all be viewed as cults. I understand that relgion does a lot of good in the community, around the world even. However, these acts don't need to be centered around God, one can volunteer to build houses in Honduras without being religious. With that aside, religions collect millions, more probably billions of dollars every year (sorry, I have no concrete numbers) in the name of an invisible "man". If you ask me, it is the greatest scam/get rich scheme and control tactic ever devised. Seriously, you can't have sex before marriage because you'll go to hell? Eternal damnation is a hell of a way to control people to do what you want them to. I fail to portray the idea with the same elegance as my friend Richard Dawkins (I do not know him personally, but would like to believe him to be a friend). You may want to watch read some of his quotes or watch a short clip of him speaking on the topics of religion.

Re: if the big bang theory is true...

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:53:56 +0100

: Excellent question fellow rambler. I've also wondered the same thing when I learned about the big bang theory. An infinite small speck of everything containing our universe can only seem to exist in some other universe and not our own universe because our universe is contained in the speck itself. But then where did that come from? The problem with cyclical Big-Bang/Big-collapse models is the fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and not showing any signs of slowing down to a collapse. However, to say that our Universe is created by some God is to accept ignorance. A paradox is created when you have a creator, wich is similar to the Big-Bang question you proposed. If there is a creator, who created the creator that created the creator. A creator complex enough to create the complex universe in which we live is many times more improbable than saying we are a product of a sensible evolution process starting with the raw elements of the universe.

Re: Is yoga just physical?

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:22:50 +0100

: I see the angle you're coming from James. It seems that the focus or purpose of yoga in the western world is perhaps more centered around the physical benefits gained from it: breathing, flexibility, muscle tone, balance. At the same time though, while performing yoga it is impossible to ignore the mental benefits gained from the experience. Holding a royal dancer pose in a quite room while breathing slowly is bound to calm a person's mind. I guess what I'm saying is that I perform yoga for the physical benefits; however, I still experience the non-physical benefits.

Re: Is life simply a matter of perceptions?

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:36:07 +0100

: It is probably impossible for two people to look at something and see something the same way. The perception of the said object would depend on the person's past experiences and even the their current mindset. As far as determining who is right you may have to turn to the Bible or our President. I kid, neither are probably good sources for accurate information. Then again, "right" also depends on the person judging.

Re: Re: If a Biblical God Exists, Everyone Goes to Heaven

Bigthink — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 06:26:08 +0100

: Your logic seems pretty found; however, if a Biblical God were to exist, would he not have to be perfect? It seems odd for a perfectionist to create people who are "flawed". Perhaps, God is flawed because it is the people who have created God(s) in their image. If I'm wrong, it's okay. I'm human.