Recent Comments Themes

3 days ago: I am a teacher, and I love using TED talks in my class. I use them to introduce concepts and projects, and to get my students started thinking and talking about issues. I also have a mini TED conference each semester where students choose a theme and give talks to their classmates following the guidelines on this site. I am a HUGE believer in hands-on, relevant, project-based, and experiential learning, and I try to make my subject (LIterature & American Literature) relevant in a way that not only prepares students for life "on the outside" but that also prepares them to think and interact and explore. I'm helping to start a school here that is founded on the principles so often promoted here at TED about creativity and art and inspiration and exploration and doing instead of just "being taught"... Education could be SO incredible and interesting and passionate, if we would just change the way we approach it. My co-founders are probably tired of all the TED talks I send them. :)

Mar 10 2010: Lets just say that the M-theory is correct, even if I am not totally convinced that there will ever be a way to objectively measure such a theory. Essentially what you are saying is that the multiverse is eternal, infinite, self-sufficient, and self-existent. Right?

Sounds like the attributes of the Christian God to me:

1)God is eternal.
(Deuteronomy 33:27; Jeremiah 10:10; Psalm 90:2)

2)God is infinite.
(1 Kings 8:22-27; Jeremiah 23:24; Psalm 102:25-27; Revelation 22:13)

3)God is self-sufficient and self-existent.
(Exodus 3:13-14; Psalm 50:10-12; Colossians 1:16)

Simply put: you believe in an unconscious random system while I believe in a conscious planned system. Am I correct in this statement?

Mar 10 2010: MR-Looks like I did write that, unintentionally. So matter does not transfer from one membrane to the next? So I take it kinetic energy is transferred from two other membranes colliding to form a new membrane? Hence the singularity, or otherwise an extension of the collision?

What level of M-theory to you subscribe? Level I through IV or a combo of a few?

Never said that God can be desribed mathmatically or objectively. God prefers to be "hidden" for the most part.At least that is how I understand it from my reading of the Bible. Certainly believe that there are things that point to God in nature, but I have educated you about this in the past, but you will not accept such an arguement. That's ok. Do not think that the M-theory can be fully demonstrated objectively either, unless we learn to enter other membranes Bits and pieces perhaps, but not fully..

Mar 10 2010: CN, Mtheory isn't beyond comprehension/mathematics/objective measures. Its validity is presently being evaluated. Proving god exists through mathematics/objective measures? Impossible. As a matter of fact this god idea is truly incomprehensible. Your 4days ago comment "since energy/matter is transferred...". We really don't see it the same way do we? That's ok with me. I know you are sincere and thoughtfully pursuing truth. I respect your efforts. Hang in there.

Mar 9 2010: MR-My definitiion of something being beyond our "natural understanding" is our inability to comprehend something, something we do not observe in the natural world or the natural universe. Without the ability to measure the desired mathematical phenomenon using known objective measures.

Lets say that we can demonstrate that flat tire demons are possible through the power of mathematics. Even though the mathematics makes sense, it would be a very difficult process if not impossbile to demonstrate they are real using empirical objective measures. Just as the infinite Multiverse is impossible to quantify objectively so is God.

You then asked if energy is transferred from one membrane to the next when membranes collide. That is a question that I essentially asked you and I was hoping that you could shed some light on. Not sure why you are re-asking it to me, because I do not know. I do not know the Theory of the Multiverse well.

Mar 8 2010: CN, Mtheory has gained much attention in explaining a true unified theory. It violates no given laws of physics. IF there is an infinite (no beginning-no end) series of universes wouldn't that be natural? Just because something is beyond our understanding doesn't make it supernatural. Just because space is infinite doesn't necessarily make it possible to travel anywhere in it. Is energy transferred from membrane to membrane when collisions occur? Define natural understanding please.

Mar 8 2010: I'm waiting for them to upload moot's talk...

Mar 8 2010: good

Mar 6 2010: ..."The only consequence of open-mindedness is more thoughts."
I agree with that gladly if it also means that this person will be open to other people's thoughts. One

consequence of more thoughts is that one needs to also take on the responsibility to check, filter and

interprete these thoughts. Just having fantasy is not necessarily being open-minded.

Mar 6 2010: ...I disagree with your answer "Because it's SCIENCE....".
If you think about your everyday life you have to admit that there is an almost uncountable amount of things

that are based upon science and you can calculate and derive them just by following science. (Buy a board for

your shelf anywhere by providing dimensions you have measured at home.) Science describes the world as we see

it. Science does not claim the underlying laws to be complete or absolutly accurate, it just gives a frame

work of the best we can do today and is open for future discoveries - it actually strives to go to the bottom

of everything. This is what makes science right to the extend that everyone (including religious people) will

be able to use these laws and get the same outcome (remember the board for your shelve? It does not matter in

what you believe in.) (to be continued...)

Mar 6 2010: ...Hence theorizing about possibilities might be philosophy unless you drive it into a wall by acting as if

religious people are better people just because they know how to worship god and being humble. Many of them

are not.


@James Barron:

"It might appear that Atheists are trying to talk sense into people who enjoy God. Which raises the question,

"What makes science right?" To which the obvious response might be, "Because it's SCIENCE. We made it to make

sense." Well, yes. Off your perceptions. Sadly, your perceptions are both skewed and incomplete." (to be continued...)

Mar 6 2010: ... The point was pointless since science has always discovered new details and it took the religion quite some time to adjust their belief and modify the big picture. Regardless they still think of god. What the most funny thing is - they worship god. Why?
Here is analogy:
Thinking of a meadow with a cow. Picture the universe as a pile of cow dung. There are many. Imagine micro-

organisms to be people (surely the dimensions are not to scale, nor is the shape). They will discover one day

their universe to be pile of dung. Where did it come from? They have no idea and still they worship god which

in their case is the cow who just happily dropped the pile not thinking of creating a universe. (to be continued...)

Mar 6 2010: @Godheval Wave: Thanks for taking the bait.

"I see nothing wrong with "God as a placeholder", meaning that where we don't know we invent something that

satisfies us, until something else better comes along. That is actually the history of philosophy and

scienceand the relationship between the two. .......Waiting around for science to answer that question is not

a sign of a "stronger mind", just one too lazy to theorize about those possibilities in the meantime."

I am afraid you are confusing various terms here. In particular philosophy and god are two different thinks

altogether. Yes, philosophy is going beyond what science has proven and discovered. However, philosophy does

not necessarily need to have a god. Religious people all over the world are forming clouds where every cloud

is believing in another god. It occured to some of them that it is impossible to have multiple gods.

Unfortunately this has led to many wars in the past. (to be continued...)

Mar 5 2010: MR-please define the word "infinite".

Also theoretically do you think that a part of each infinite universe exists in every other universe since energy/matter is transferred from one universe to the next during the collision of two membrates? So essentially we are all one, hence the Multiverse?

Mar 5 2010: i look forward to this theme also addressing looking at the conventional through the lens of the spiritual - perhaps the most unconventional viewing point, and in so many ways the lenspoint that is closest to reality ... i do love this theme, and love the pyschological and social topics best

Mar 5 2010: MR-Not sure an infinite series of universes could occur in nature, because we cannot understand how something can actualy be infinite. Some say in our universe, that space goes on forever, but I do not subsribe to that i think it would have to be like a special sphere in which if you kept on going you would eventually come back to the other side, or it would double back and you would end up where you started.

Do you think that an infinite number of universes breaks the second law of thermodynamics in regards to the law of entropy? Wouldn't the Multiverse have to have its own set of laws for this to make sense? Therefore would one call it supernatural because it is beyond our current natural understanding?

Mar 4 2010: CN, To me an infinite series isn't supernatural, just difficult. If in fact there is an infintie series that would be a part of nature. Right?

Mar 2 2010: Ahhhhhh, happiness. What is it I am forgetting to remember? To smile when I might otherwise frown? To stop and smell the roses? To be grateful for what I have and not bask in what I do not. To listen when my children laugh? And how about that Prozac?

Mar 2 2010: Fantastic! Do we all wish to be immortal? I do...

Mar 2 2010: GW-I can certainly relate to your experiences. I believe there are some scientific studies involving what you are writing about involving "consciousness". Doctors have probed the alive human brain trying to stimulate the "consciousness" or "mind", without being able to do so. Also a study has demonstated that in 10% of 64 heart attack victims who required life saving measures, experienced an out of body experience. Perhaps the mind is not a true part of the physical body. Perhaps the mind is in a different dimension or realm. Who knows?