Posted on 06/03/2011 5:36:31 PM PDT by PhilosopherStone1000
I don't know how to run a ping list, but I'd be interested in
a) running the list and b) goosing participants to contribute.
My background is in physics and philosophy of science. I find, now that I'm older, that many concepts that were difficult to understand when I was 19 (for reasons including the fact that I was much more interested at that age in girls rather than momentum) are much easier for me. I was thinking that for many FReepers, if they were able to revisit some of the concepts that gave them such trouble in High School or College, they might find things much easier to understand.
Anywho, here are two great links:
http://www.khanacademy.org/
Sal Khan is the math/science teacher you always wanted but never got. His explanations are clear, simple and yet profound (I don't know his politics and don't care. He may be a leftie dimwit, but none of that comes through his videos).
After you've refreshed your linear algebra skills, this is the clearest explanation of Quantum Mechanics that I've seen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epzh76hNl8I
Susskind is a leftie dimwit, but ignore his politics because, except for one (extremely subtle) hint, it doesn't come out.
So I need someone to either
a) explain how ping lists work or b) point me to the appropriate "help" page on ping lists.
Looking forward to the debate between Protestants, Catholics and atheists/agnostics on this since I have, at some point in my life, been all three.
So, were did you land?
Currently Portland! (not by choice- or rather (since we all have free will) not by first choice).
Seriously? I call myself an Aquinian Catholic. I can get my head around God as the answer to all the ‘reductio ad absurdums’ of the five natural proofs of the existence of God. Getting from there to virgin births and loaves and fishes is taking a lot more time. But then even Catholics will tell you (at least the very smart ones I went to school with and learned from) that because of man’s fallen nature we can no longer simply get to a belief in the divintiy of Jesus from natural law. And I’m not arrogant enough to believe that I can do what the Catholic Church, after 2000 years, has decided is not possible.
Are you familiar with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA?
They have interesting articles on a number of scientific topics, including up-to-date information on intelligent design research, as well as science and culture.
“Are you familiar with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA?”
*****
Yes...and smart enough to know that any in-depth discussion over the issues they cover leads to one or more FReepers getting suspended or banned.
“Are you familiar with the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA?”
*****
Yes...and smart enough to know that any in-depth discussion over the issues they cover leads to one or more FReepers getting suspended or banned.
Haven’t been up to Seattle lately. I used to live in SF where they have the Exploratorium and currently volunteer at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) in Portland. So short answer, no.
Question since you brought up Intelligent Design (and I ask this as someone who studied with Catholics who got burned by the whole Galileo thing (and I don’t mean the original ones, I’m not that old)): should we circumscribe God’s power based on what our current understanding of science is?
Let me explain. In Galileo’s time, the Catholic Church taught that it was “impossible” for God to creat a solar system such that it appeared (to us mere mortals) that we lived on an immovable Earth and the Sun rose around us (rising in the East and setting in the West). Turns out that it is entirely possible for God to do this. In fact he has. He has created a system where it feels to us like we are not moving but in fact we are on a planet which is rotating on its axis which rotating around the sun.
So I (to make a long story somewhat longer) am not a big fan of saying that God can or can’t, must or mustn’t do something.
Yeah, stick another thread if you wish on Philosophy over in the Religion forum. You’ll burn out quickly on a few of the posters over there and spend more time on physics here anyhow :)
Count me in. I hold small philosophical group discussions in my house.
In addition to being tongue in cheek, that is quite an indefinite answer.
Bought my son Susskind's "The Black Hole War," and we both enjoyed it. Physical reality is an amazing study.
Understood.
It’s been interesting as I’ve gotten older seeing the number of divisions/classes that people of varying degrees of faith or not fall into.
There are those (generally lefties) who believe that science has replaced God (and there are agnostic/atheist conservatives who believe the same thing).
There are literalist Protestants who don’t understand science at all but leap to any website that will confirm their preconceived notions about intelligent design.
There are Catholics who really don’t understand scientific doctrine (Catholic scientific doctrine as it has evolved since Galileo)
And then there are those who, because they belong to one of the above groups, hate and revile those of one of the other above groups (when I was at TAC, my room-mate, an evangelical, would come back from class every day muttering under his breath about the “Pharisees”! I told him “dood! you don’t have to be here, but while you’re here, at least be polite. If you don’t like it, go.) (he left).
Sign me up.
Here’s what I’ve heard about ping lists: as the text sez above the “To:” box, “use semicolons to separate multiple recipients”.
hence:
; name one; name two; name three
and so on.
I recommend keeping the list in alphabetical order, in a file. On the Mac here I use a clipping file because it’s fast and easy, and I don’t have editing capability (once I’ve pulled it to the desktop or into the folder, all I can do is rename or delete it). The ping list includes everyone who wishes to join, and you can exclude your own name, because the ping message will show up anyway in your “my posts” or “in forum” screen.
Then all you need is a ping message of some sort. Check out the Astronomy Picture of the Day (an old, old list that I foolishly agreed to revive. Hey, you want to take over as manager?) for a barebones example of one.
today’s topic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2729165/posts
list of topics:
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/apod-chat/index
Thanks!
So basically I just keep a text file somewhere that I can keep in some order, separated by “;” and then just copy-paste that into the “to”;
Cool (I’m actually a programmer by trade so that shouldn’t be too difficult).
Don’t know how strong your math skills are, but check out the list of Susskind videos I posted. The great thing about the internet is that you can pause one of his videos, hit google with something you don’t understand and then get an answer.
I don’t expect to completely understand Quantum Mechanics after watching the series, but I do know that I’ve learned more in the last few days watching these than I did in two semesters of college physics.
Teach me Alchemy. :-)
Well, from a history of science standpoint,the book, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution, by James Hannam is reviewed in the Nota Bene portion of the institute’s webpage and addresses this very thing.
The Institute doesn’t operate from an a priori argument that God created the world, let’s prove it. It draws from a rich tradition of historical science, ‘natural philosophy’ that was very well developed by the middle ages that provided a logical basis for scientific thought. I highly recommend their site.
Something else I like is that the software allows parameter passing, so I can build a quick posting link. It’ll work as a browser favorite or shortcut file, Windows or Mac OS.
Here’s an example of one, I use this to post a Catastrophism topic:
This technique would probably be awkward for pasting in the entire list when one goes to ping the topic. Hmm, I’d never thought of that before...
Off to the lab! ;’)
Debate starter:
Please make (or disprove) the argument that a God who is both eternal and omniscient could have created a universe with the initial parameters such as the ones we know to be true of our universe knowing that 15 billion years later, human beings would have arisen through evolution.
Please make (or disprove) the argument that human beings were the goal of God’s operations at the creation of this universe even if the goal and the original starting point of the operation are separated by 15 billion years.
Good luck!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.